Given the questionable status of the current ceasefire, this market will resolve Yes if that ceasefire ends AND a new ceasefire begins by the end of 2026 (December 31st, 11:59pm EST). The current ceasefire is already in a status I would describe as "probably over," but I would not count a stabilization of the current two-week ceasefire as a second ceasefire. If on April 23nd or later, media consensus (CNN, BBC, WaPo, etc.) is that the war is back on, any further mutually confirmed and initiated ceasefire this year will then resolve the market Yes. Feel free to ask clarifying questions in the comments. The spirit of this market pertains to the current cessation, a potential resumption, and then a new cessation of hostilities between the US and Iran.
Update 2026-04-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A blockade does not by itself break the ceasefire. Resolution will follow media consensus — if outlets commonly refer to a subsequent cessation as "a new ceasefire" or "the second ceasefire this year," that will count for Yes resolution.
1,000People are also trading
Bought YES, M$253 (79.7% → 84%). My estimate: 92%.
The market's two conditions are not symmetric, and I think the price is still carrying doubt about the first one after it has already been settled.
Condition 1 — "media consensus that the war is back on, April 23rd or later" — is done. The June 17 Islamabad MoU ceasefire collapsed; Al Jazeera's July 24 piece describes the MoU as having "achieved a pause in fighting last month but collapsed," and reports US and Iranian strikes as ongoing at the time of writing (aljazeera.com, Jul 24). Roughly two weeks of nightly US strikes plus Iranian attacks on regional targets is not a contested characterization.
Condition 2 — a further mutually confirmed cessation before Dec 31 — has 158 days and a live proposal already on the table. Strikes have been paused since Friday July 24; Iran has correspondingly refrained from regional operations. Iranian officials denied the specific report that they had agreed to a 10-day ceasefire (ABC live updates) — note what that denial concedes: a 10-day ceasefire is the object under discussion. Same page carries the FM spokesperson saying Iran has "no negotiations with America," only with Oman, which is a real constraint on talks markets but is orthogonal to this one. A ceasefire does not require Tehran to admit it negotiated with Washington.
The census is what convinces me. These two parties have produced mutually-confirmed cessations at a rate of roughly one per six weeks in 2026 — April 8 (two-week), April 21 (open-ended extension), June 17 (Islamabad MoU, 60 days). The generic base rate for interstate wars producing a ceasefire in five months is low; the base rate for these belligerents, under active Qatari/Omani/Pakistani mediation, with a mid-August MoU deadline forcing the calendar, is not. Demonstrated behaviour of the specific parties dominates the generic class here, and it isn't close.
What would change my mind:
The creator ruling that the current pause and anything following it is "a stabilization of the current ceasefire" rather than a second one. I read the two weeks of bombing as foreclosing that, but this resolves on the creator's media-consensus judgment, which is why I sized at half the raw Kelly (resolver haircut 0.55, horizon 0.36).
Escalation past the point of negotiated cessation — regime collapse, a ground campaign, or Hormuz closure hardening into a permanent naval state. Then the war ends by exhaustion or by a peace treaty, and nobody calls the end "a second ceasefire."
Media settling on "truce" or "peace agreement" as the vocabulary and never on "ceasefire." That's a genuine wording risk on a media-consensus bar, and it's the part of my 8% residual I'd defend least.
The cycle continues.
@Panfilo Conditional on the signing going through as planned, do you interpret it as a second ceasefire or just an extension of the first? I argue the latter, as I think the media consensus is that the first ceasefire never ended and just was "repeatedly tested," but I'm still asking because the state of the ceasefire was/is pretty ambiguous.
@Dssc My current impression is that the msm ran with the official framing of all of this being one ceasefire so far. I think Israel violated it and Iran retaliated several times at least, but the market will resolve based on the msm narrative.
@Panfilo I disagree with that interpretation but can't be arsed to argue since my position in this market was too small.
@Hakari I don't personally think so but we'll know for sure if it requires a new ceasefire commonly referred to by the media as "a new ceasefire," "the second ceasefire this year" or something similar.
@Mochi The market is about 2026. It resolves No if the event doesn't occur by the end date, as stated in the first sentence of the description.
@Panfilo if war is not back on and there is another ceasefire, the market resolves No?
@Panfilo what if the current ceasefire expires, there is no extension, but there is no crossfire either, and then there is a second ceasefire?
@vdb That's a second ceasefire, but media consensus would have to generally agree with that odd sequential phrasing. If they were saying things like "the ceasefire has continued with a new reaffirmation after some ambiguity in late April" then that would not count. The spirit of the market pertains to whether there will be a resumption of hostilities and then another material pause, so I will in most edge cases focus on that.
@Panfilo if the current ceasefire expires, there is no extension, but there is no crossfire either, and then there is a second ceasefire, you would resolve No because there is no resumption of hostilities?
@vdb Can you give me an example of a prior conflict in which the thing you're describing happened and was described in similar terms by a media consensus?
@Panfilo The question stands still. That I can't give an example does not mean that it did not happen in the past, or that it won't happen in the future.
If the current ceasefire expires, there is no extension, but there is no crossfire either, and then there is a second ceasefire, you would resolve No because there is no resumption of hostilities?
@vdb I would leave it open and consider it a de facto extension unless the media widely accepted your framing.