N/a'ed. I am incredibly sorry but I just don't feel like there is a way I can fairly resolve this market that will make everyone happy. Note to self and others, keep discussion onsite, don't commit to anything until after close date, and for the love of god make clear resolution terms.

@Rucker I think given the controversy, I am much happier with this outcome, otherwise either one group or another would have been very unhappy, this way at least nobody loses anything and we can move on learning some lessons from this.

Is this now just stuck? 😢 I do not want to have to install yet another app just to know what the heck is going on - the author should be discussing things here, not elsewhere...

@AnonUser @Rucker

@AnonUser @mattyb I was planning on N/a but a few people wanted to try and get a more realistic resolve. I'm torn on what to do. I was planning a YES resolution based on what @Panfilo told me, however that doesn't really seem accurate anymore. The problem is I either have to double down on YES or N/a. NO isn't an option due to the screwery. Ultimately, N/a is likely and I'll just pretend this never happened.

Tl;dr, don't make markets that you have no intention of keeping track of cuz someone told you to make them.

@Rucker You could technically also resolve 50/50

@Panfilo that doesn't make sense at all

@LeonardoKr Yeah I mean from my pov the maker said he’d use a method to resolve, then told me he’d made a specific resolution decision, then I bet based on it and then I told everyone who didn’t bother to look at the method he said he’d use, then the market resolved hours later. Pretty cut and dry. This is me being chill about potentially losing 7k profit after doing everything right and being told a falsehood.

@Panfilo the damage is done. I feel like we must not, however, add more damage

Misresolution + discussion taking place in a different location while the question was still open

@RemNi I'd be OK with n/a

Unfair, there has been no aid approved at all.

There may be a vote in April.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/01/mike-johnson-ukraine-aid

@traders

@Panfilo I wish I had seen this before rushing to bet, and before the market closed. The maker's comments in the screenshot seem inconsistent with the comments they left here in this thread, regarding what the criteria would be.

Thanks for communicating that conversation into this thread and trying to reach less careful traders like me. I wish the maker had done the same, or at least articulated a consistent basis for resolving the market.

@Kolyin Yeah even though I’m getting a huge win I basically agree that this market was very broad and should have had a clearer description. That said, when a maker says they’re gonna use a discord thread to resolve, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you follow them to that discord thread!

@Panfilo Oh, I agree. This one is on me for betting without doing that. But I do think the market maker should at least have reposted their decision here before the market closes; obviously a number of people didn't see them change their mind on a different thread.

Does the 300 million mentioned in Sec. 8148 of this bill count? Help, I don't speak legalese. Seem to be lots of conditions on the funds but not sure if that should stop them from counting.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/text

@JeremiahKellick Given the earlier clarification that this is about Congress approving funding, not about the executive branch, seems like this should count? My understanding is Congress approved these funds and now it's up to the executive branch to carry out the use of them in accordance with the conditions.

@JeremiahKellick depends on the timing of the question, looks like that bill passed on January 3rd 2024 and this question was created February 22nd 2024

@StopPunting See the "actions" page. This was the recent funding bill that was passed just in time to avoid a shutdown.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2882/all-actions

@JeremiahKellick if we're just looking for when Congress passed it, not signed by president, it looks like the Senate passed it on 3/12

@JeremiahKellick The funding bill only sets aside funds for the Secretary of State to obligate for Ukraine, not self-executing.

Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not less than 15 days prior to obligating funds made available in this section, notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of any such obligation: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not more than 60 days after such notification is made, inform such committees if such funds have not been obligated and the reasons therefor

@Rucker Does this count?

@thepurplebull If I grant everything you said in your comment—which I tentatively do, as it seems correct—I still don't see why that would prevent this market from resolving yes.

I'd imagine it's common that for funding Congress approves, it's not automatically sent to some final destination, but allocated to some department to work out more granular details, with conditions on how it can be used. But we would still say Congress approved the funding.

Admittedly the title says the US, not Congress, so you could argue that we need some more folks in the executive branch to approve before we ought to say "the US" approved funding. But I say it's up to interpretation, and I lean towards the Congress + President interpretation. An earlier clarification from

@Rucker suggests she's thinking Congress.

@JeremiahKellick Hi. Apologies for the delay. I have been very busy the last while. I am going to clarify right now that I am NOT good at legal stuff. I'm currently doing a bit of research on what this actually means. I'm inclined to say no since while the money has been set aside, I don't see anything about the money being in Ukraine's pockets at this moment. I'll pop open a thread in the Discord for discussion and see if anyone who knows a bit more than me has something to say.

@JeremiahKellick Although we normally think of the Cabinet as a “rubber stamp”, the DoD ultimately has final authority on if and when the allocated funding is executed. From Ukraine’s perspective, it doesn’t actually mean anything that the president signed the appropriations bill into law.

@thepurplebull I think it’s “credible evidence” of “approval” and whether that money gets spent in a certain timeframe for its earmarked purpose would be a different market.

@Rucker That money actually was spent a long time ago. So I believe it should not be counted, as it is not the new aid package and will not result in Ukraine getting any additional weapons/assistance. As some official quoted in the following article said, it was a symbolic move.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/25/congress-approved-300m-for-ukraine-last-week-the-pentagon-spent-it-4-months-ago-00148855

@YuriiStasiuk But the approval happened in March!

@YuriiStasiuk Well that's rather surprising. How the hell does that work? And why does reality so often unfold in ways that make market resolution controversial?

Of course I can point out that the current situation still clearly fulfills the wording in the title. But I could understand an argument for an implied spirit of the market that this could violate.

Idk, guess I'll leave it up to @Rucker who's got the unenviable position of adjudicating this.