Was the Kremlin in on it?
<-------- EDIT 12-08-23 -------->
From now on I will probably add comment clarifications to the description even though I believe that clarification is primarily what comments are for, people seem to not like it.
If there is material credible evidence (according to my judgement) that something other than a straightforward rebellion / revolt / insurrection / coup / mutiny / uprising / your favorite adjective here took place, I'll resolve it "Yes".
The spirit of the question is asking if things were as they seemed, or if it was production put on for the benefit of the viewers, and the major outcomes were pre-determined or at least agreed upon. For instance, if the agreement between Lukashenko and Prigozhin was in place ahead of time and there was never any intention for troops to enter Moscow, and this becomes known in some way I would resolve the market "Yes", notably this does not require any involvement from the Russian military. I would actually claim that is justifiable for this market to be trading substantially higher, since there is no need to figure out why the Russian armed forces would be okay with losing seven aircraft in the course of acting out some sort of farcical cover for troop repositioning or whatever.
As far as resolution, for now I feel comfortable placing the burden of proof on the hoax side, "insurrection" seems like a pretty good null hypothesis. If there is some level of low credibility evidence for it being a hoax, I will change my default resolution to N/A.
Also, I might extend this market, I would guess that I would almost always do this rather than resolve the market N/A. Loans mean that the opportunity cost of leaving it open is fairly low, and I think the category of markets with what I'll call murky epistemics are useful as a reference for changes in sentiment. See for example, the "Did COVID-19 come from a laboratory?" market.
Status: So far, there seems to be no evidence of a hoax, the current resolution date is still in place.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ308 | |
| 2 | Ṁ276 | |
| 3 | Ṁ87 | |
| 4 | Ṁ54 | |
| 5 | Ṁ35 |
has anyone seen anything that would indicate there was an agreement between Putin & Prigozhin before the drive to Moscow?
dismantling Wagner would very costly (both in $$ but also operationally) - the points below and other articles that have come out over the past month only really make sense if the events were a genuine/independent threat
> Andrey Kartapolov says that, after Prigozhin refused to have Wagner sign contracts with the MoD, he was told Wagner would no longer be allowed to play a role in the war or receive funding and other resources. He says that is what led to the mutiny.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1674493378728173569
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6070650
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/putin-moves-to-seize-control-of-wagners-global-empire-26d49286
> Russia’s deputy foreign minister flew to Damascus to personally deliver a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad : Wagner Group forces would no longer operate there independently
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wagners-prigozhin-planned-to-capture-russian-military-leaders-805345cf
> Prigozhin originally intended to capture Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the chief of Russia’s general staff, during a visit to a southern region that borders Ukraine that the two were planning.
As I have said in other threads: the official story doesn't make sense, and it is unclear whether there was a behind-the-scenes coup attempt which failed.
However, the "convoy to Moscow" was never anything other than a military convoy. It could not have achieved any military objective other than relocating a Wagner division to Belarus.
@AlexPower just to confirm, why would "it is unclear whether there was a behind-the-scenes coup attempt which failed" make this resolve positively given the description of the question is "Was the Kremlin in on it?" ?
@Sailfish can you add more details about how this will be resolved?
@AndyMartin I mean something along the lines of "there was a backroom coup that failed around June 20, and Prigozhin's punishment was him being forced to go along with this plot/scheme/subterfuge/hoax/etc."
(( I am very much not saying I believe that; I am saying that I cannot prove it false ))
@AlexPower thanks. I don't think that scenario is very likely, but I guess it's not clear to me a failed separate coup would mean the Kremlin was "in on it" even if that was what happened. We can wait for Sailfish to clarify
IOW my reading of this question was that it's similar to https://manifold.markets/Daniel_MC/are-the-tensions-between-yevgeny-pr - what are the scenarios where this market could resolve YES but the linked market could resolve NO?
@AndyMartin For this market to resolve "Yes" it is not necessary that the military in particular be in on it. For instance, if there was a tacit agreement between Putin and Prigozhin to engage in whatever kind of show, this market could resolve "Yes". There doesn't need to be a wider military scheme or trick, and Prigozhin can still be killed or imprisoned and have this market resolve "Yes". If there is material credible evidence (according to my judgement) that something other than a straightforward rebellion / revolt / insurrection / coup / mutiny / uprising / your favorite adjective here took place, I'll resolve it "Yes".
The spirit of the question is asking if things were as they seemed, or if it was production put on for the benefit of the viewers, and the major outcomes were pre-determined or at least agreed upon. For instance, if the agreement between Lukashenko and Prigozhin was in place ahead of time and there was never any intention for troops to enter Moscow, and this becomes known in some way I would resolve the market "Yes", notably this does not require any involvement from the Russian military. I would actually claim that is justifiable for this market to be trading substantially higher, since there is no need to figure out why the Russian armed forces would be okay with losing seven aircraft in the course of acting out some sort of farcical cover for troop repositioning or whatever.
As far as resolution, for now I feel comfortable placing the burden of proof on the hoax side, "insurrection" seems like a pretty good null hypothesis. If there is some level of low credibility evidence for it being a hoax, I will change my default resolution to N/A.
Also, I might extend this market, I would guess that I would almost always do this rather than resolve the market N/A. Loans mean that the opportunity cost of leaving it open is fairly low, and I think the category of markets with what I'll call murky epistemics are useful as a reference for changes in sentiment. See for example, the "Did COVID-19 come from a laboratory?" market.
@Sailfish Under what conditions would it resolve NO instead of being extended? If evidence that things were not as they seemed doesn't come to light, eventually you'll need to resolve NO, and it would be good to commit to a close date in advance. Whether this market resolves at the end of this year or the next makes a large difference to whether I'll bet more - regardless of loans, there are still strong incentives to bet on markets that will give earlier realised profits.
@chrisjbillington The close date is the market resolution date CONDITIONAL on no evidence of a hoax coming to light. Strong evidence of a hoax = YES resolution, weak evidence of a hoax = extension (or N/A)