Will Yevgeny Prigozhin be confirmed dead by the end of the week?
Basic
174
96k
resolved Aug 27
Resolved
YES

Edit 20:00 on Friday - the Guardian has published his obituary so now we're just waiting on one of the other two!


Reputable news sources are currently reporting that Yevgeny Prigozhin was listed as a passenger in a plane that was involved in a fatal crash.

Will it be confirmed by 11:00 PM UK time on Sunday (the closing date of this market) that he is dead?

I will resolve this to YES if two of the following three news sources report that he is dead without caveating it as "reported to be dead", "believed to be dead", "almost certainly dead" or anything like that:

  • BBC

  • Guardian

  • Reuters

There is also a market on whether the news will be confirmed by these sources by Thursday evening:

/SimonGrayson/will-yevgeny-prigozhin-be-confirmed-05816a6540d4

Edit - just to add that I will not be trading in this market myself. I think the resolution is pretty clear and objective (it's based on whether the three news sources I've named are stating that he is dead without qualification) but I want to make sure that no one thinks I have an incentive to bend the definition in any way!

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ2,708
2Ṁ1,856
3Ṁ1,028
4Ṁ861
5Ṁ808
Sort by:

So it seems like both the BBC and Reuters are stating his death as a fact in these two articles:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66604261

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/obituary-yevgeny-prigozhin-crossed-putins-red-lines-with-short-lived-wagner-2023-08-24/

Along with the obituary in the Guardian, that meets the resolution criteria and I will resolve this to YES!

predicted YES

@SimonGrayson we're free. Finally

predicted YES

@SimonGrayson thank God. Some people may even have learned what hypotheticals and quantifiers are.

@RatUziCat note that both of the articles above cite the sources. it was a ridiculous line in the sand to draw that they do so in a separate sentence.

@RatUziCat but whatever, i note you switched on a dime and went all in on YES to profit off my finding the reuters article and now you stand on your high horse. lol.

@AdamTreat That's because some of us shared enough of an understanding of the resolution criteria to know that counted, and we could also articulate why that counted while some other articles didn't.

predicted YES

@AdamTreat that's the rules of the app, that's not dishonest. Also, I haven't changed my resolution criteria, I didn't fight them when my bet turned sour. I initially bet Reuters wouldn't confirm, they did confirm, so I sold. If you still don't understand the resolution criteria, you don't have to try and ad hominem.

predicted YES

Note that myself and several others tried hard to explain what we understood did and didn't count, for everyone's benefit, so that everyone could trade on the same shared understanding as much as possible.

@RatUziCat you're the one with the snide comments and i'm the one who actually posted the reuters article you profited off of. @Jack sure you tried but your understanding wasn't necessarily the OP's understanding and it wasn't clarified in the main resolution criteria. and now you're standing on a high horse acting like you had it right the entire time and others were hopelessly and needlessly confused.

I find it highly ironic that I actually went out and found the reuters article that all of you used to profit based on your james stated 'alice' sentence construction when that was never specified in the original resolution criteria.

And you all now lambast me for doing your legwork that you've profited off of. The whole market stinks to high heaven and i'm not the only one who thinks so ... both YES and NO sides... but keep on your high horses i guess.

predicted YES

@AdamTreat You could have bet YES on it. There was nothing stopping you other than your hesitance because you disagreed with the author's statements on how this would resolve.

@jack your 'trying hard' about your 'shared understanding' isn't wasn't the criteria in OP's original and it isn't shared. it should have been resolved based on the original BBC article that cited russian DNA testing.

@jack i'm quite aware I could have bet YES but I didn't because I don't like betting on markets that are ill constructed and where the resolution criteria is ambiguous. when OP refused to use the BBC article with DNA tests as conf. even though I could have likely profited. but it still delicious to see others telling me to shut up when they profit off of the article I showed them.

predicted YES

@AdamTreat Thanks for the mana, Adam!

predicted YES

@jack you bought a lot of my YES shares at 50%. I put the chance for obituaries below that. Maybe ~30%. What was your estimate?

predicted YES

@marktweise My prediction here swung a lot as different discussions were happening, so I don't have a single estimate, but shortly before the end I was predicting >60% chance that somebody from BBC/Reuters would say he's dead without qualification somewhere.

Maybe this will settle it. NOTE: I still believe this should be honestly settled with an NA, but here is your second confirmation with zero caveat language.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/obituary-yevgeny-prigozhin-crossed-putins-red-lines-with-short-lived-wagner-2023-08-24/


"He dared to challenge the authority of Vladimir Putin. Two months later, he was dead."

@AdamTreat Yeah, I think that should count by my reading of the resolution criteria.

predicted NO

@AdamTreat no, it should resolve YES now

Ok, I still think it should be resolved NA. There was a lot of market activity and good faith confusion about the resolution criteria.

@AdamTreat I guess we should let @jack decide.

predicted YES

Some thoughts: I think the author should have edited the description and title ASAP to clarify the situation as much as possible. They did post a comment, which is great, but the comment quickly got buried - if it had just been copy pasted into the description that would have helped.

And while it clarified the question in my mind, others apparently were still confused. At that point, it is generally a good idea to close the market briefly, post as clear a clarification as possible, and then reopen.

predicted YES

I guess we should let @jack decide.

I'm not the decider for this market, the author is. If the author wants help with the decision, I've been piloting a "resolution council" procedure which they can use to get a decision by trusted, experienced authors.

predicted YES

@jack That was sarcasm, sorry, shouldn’t have.

@RatUziCat i'm not accusing anyone of operating in bad faith. even though i have strong opinion that this should be closed as NA at the worst it can be a learning thing for others composing resolution criteria. i've learned that other people have differing ideas about citing sources and nuanced understanding of what a caveat is that i don't share.

predicted YES

@jack yes, I agree. My "no" was for Adam who still wants a NA.

@RatUziCat yeah, i'm the one who found the reuters article that you're profiting off of. maybe just say thanks.

@AdamTreat Hilariously it turns out both Reuters and BBC published the right language yesterday

predicted YES

@AdamTreat It’s interesting that it took a couple hours of controversy before anyone went looking for articles beyond google.

@ElmerFudd it should never have come to it. hence it should be NA. but let's let the profiteers go who still want to post snide comments.

@AdamTreat the snide comments were taken back and i take back my angry snide comments in response.

@ElmerFudd Very true. I was keeping an eye on both (BBC in partiticular, and the Guardian before the obit) so I’m annoyed I didn’t spot that one last night. It could have avoided todays controversy!