Will the Tom Brady FTX lawsuit be dismissed?
19
101
370
2025
69%
chance

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/10055869-tom-brady-stephen-curry-more-athletes-named-in-lawsuit-over-ftxs-collapse.amp.html

Will resolved to YES if the lawsuit against Tom Brady in particular is dismissed. The lawsuit might still go to trial for the other defendants.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:
predicts NO

I believe it will neither be dismissed nor go to trial. Eventually he will settle.

@RafaelZamora will this market's close date be extended until there is an outcome, or do you intend to resolve it NO at end of year if there is no news?

Edit: creator is inactive. I'm betting as if the market will not resolve NO merely because there has been no news yet. If mods agree, and the creator doesn't return, they can extend the close date as needed.

@chrisjbillington sounds right to me; happy to extend it (maybe to Dec 31 2024?).

bought Ṁ10 NO from 67% to 65%
bought Ṁ10 YES from 71% to 72%
predicts NO

@chrisjbillington I bet no under the assumption this would close end of year and resolve accordingly. I would not be comfortable with the close date being extended.

predicts YES

@RobertCousineau I think that's usually a reasonable assumption for most markets, but less so in markets like this one, they often get extended by the creator if they're active.

There's a legitimate difference between "will it happen by $DATE" and "what will be the outcome: dismissal or trial?", and I think usually the latter is more often meant when it's not specified for a market about a court case like this. Since the close date was set more than a year out at market creation, I don't think it should be read as much more than a placeholder.

Suspect if you surveyed markets about court cases that have had a clarification by the creator on this ambiguity, most got extended.

@RobertCousineau Isn't it standard to have the date in the title and description if it's meant to ask about an event by a certain date? Closing dates themselves aren't meant to be a deadline for real-world events, just for trading, as far as I know.

One option would be to close trading on the current close date but wait to resolve. I don't think I've ever seen a long-term close like that though.

Psychologically, it seems to me the most likely explanation is that the creator didn't have in mind "Will the Tom Brady FTX lawsuit be dismissed in 2024?" right? Do you think that's what they had in mind, but they just chose not to mention the date? Hm.

bought Ṁ65 of NO

@Jacy and @chrisjbillington I agree it seems likely the creator would extend it were they active. I would not argue against them doing so either. @Jacy I'd say it is good practice to do so but very much not required (and the absence of a date does not mean the market does not close at the technical close date).

My bet was based on the idea that moderators would resolve based on the actually available information (e.g. the title/desc and the close date), and not attempt to interpret the creators intent and extend the close (I feel like that is not something that generally happens).

If you both strongly disagree/think I mismodeled this, I am happy to eat the loss.

predicts YES

@RobertCousineau A judgement call would need to be made at market close anyway - upon being pinged to resolve it a moderator would have to decide whether the creator intended the close date to be part of the resolution criteria or not.

Officially, close dates are not part of resolution criteria - when we read into them as such, we are reading into the intent of the creator rather than the literal criteria. I support doing this, as I'm a spirit-over-letter try-to-figure-out-the-vibes-of-what-they-were-going-for kind of guy. But if you're a literalist, officially, the close date shouldn't factor in.

(and since if you do read into it in this case it looks like they probably didn't intend it to be part of the criteria, I think an extension is warranted on both literalist and spiritualist grounds)

@RobertCousineau I feel like I've seen the interpretation approach in every case like this, but I haven't been keeping track and don't do much "Moderator" activity. We could ask some other person whose opinion you respect and go with what they think? I'm not sure.

For what it's worth, I am a literalist (Chris and I butt heads on this), but I just don't see close dates as resolution criteria.

predicts YES

@Jacy happy for someone else to be pulled in just for precedent-setting, if nothing else. Good for there to be more consensus around these things among moderators.

@chrisjbillington yeah, ideally we'd have a document with guidelines on this sort of thing (flexible, but just a default in these situations), though I don't have time to make one.

sold Ṁ91 of NO

@chrisjbillington you make good points. I've sold most of my no shares. I'd've defined myself as a spirit-over-letter person when it comes to the creator resolving, but did not expect that to be the case with moderator resolutions. If that's normal though, I'm quite happy to not protest further. It does also seem like I'd be doing some mental gymnastics to be a spirit-over-letter person when it comes to creator resolution and not when it is moderator resolution, given I generally think moderators are more faithful actors.

@Jacy feel free to involve someone if you'd like (i.e. to set precedent as Chris mentions), but feel free consider my contrary statements as rescinded.

@RobertCousineau just due to time constraints, I will go ahead and extend the close date, but let's us three keep this market in mind as precedent to refer to later.

bought Ṁ45 of NO

New reporting from Bloomberg!

No material of note other than the fact that the lawsuits are starting back up.

bought Ṁ6 of YES

Related:

More related questions