A trader made $192m in profit by shorting bitcoin 30 mins before Trump's tariff announcement today. Is this person 1. part of the Trump administration, or 2. a close relative of the former (i.e. spouse, child, parent, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or first cousin)?
This market will resolve if there is a preponderance of evidence for the trader being or not being an insider, or N/A if there is inconclusive evidence before the end of the year.
Update 2025-10-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A specific individual does not need to be identified for the market to resolve YES or NO.
Example: If the White House says an insider did it but does not identify a specific individual and there is no countervailing evidence, this would likely resolve YES.
If no substantial information is learned by the end of the year, this will resolve N/A.
1,000People are also trading
This market will resolve if there is a preponderance of evidence for the trader being or not being an insider, or N/A if there is inconclusive evidence before the end of the year.
Could you say more about what kind of worlds would lead you to resolve YES vs NO vs N/A? Like are YES and NO largely meant to indicate the person that profited is eventually ~known and known to be either an insider or not an insider?
Another way of asking is, assuming this is like most "suspicious" cases where something sorta looks like insider trading but we never hear anything more about it, would it resolve N/A? It's not clear to me to what extent you would update on "no insider was caught for this or anything like it which is evidence for NO" or "This pattern didn't continue so it's not an insider repeatedly making money off of future announcements"
The reason I ask is that under my current reading, this market almost always resolves N/A, and it might very well resolve Yes/No in a way that is very biased, ie we might be pretty likely to find out in insider-worlds but very unlikely to learn anything in non-insider worlds (or arguably vice versa but idrk). Which leads to the title being "misleading" wrt to the market probability in a sense
@Bayesian If we never learn anything substantial, this resolves N/A.
A specific individual does not have to be identified for the market to resolve yes/no. If, for example, the White House says an insider did it but does not identify a specific individual and there is no countervailing evidence, this probably resolves yes.
I'm not so confident this will resolve N/A. It is hard to maintain anonymity for huge trades. The Polymarket election trader was identified eventually.