Resolves YES if the ICE Brent crude front-month futures contract posts a daily settlement price at or above $100.00 per barrel on any trading day from this market's creation through June 30, 2026 (inclusive). Resolves NO otherwise.
Oracle: ICE Brent front-month daily settlement as reported by a public source — tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil, Reuters, or Investing.com. Intraday spikes that do not close at/above $100 do not count; the daily settlement is the trigger. If the three sources disagree on a settlement, the Reuters/ICE figure governs.
Context: Brent has been trading near $95 amid the live US–Iran Gulf conflict and Strait of Hormuz risk, with markets split between a swift-de-escalation path and an escalation spike.
1,000Creator update — taking a modest NO position here (M$25 resting at 40%).
My estimate: ~22% YES. The market drifted up to 44% on US–Iran headlines (US struck Iranian radar sites; Iran fired drones toward Hormuz and ballistic missiles at Gulf states this week). But the oil tape is telling the opposite story: Brent settled ~$93–95 and fell ~2.8% Friday — below $94 — on Chinese demand weakness (crude imports at a ten-year low), not up on a war premium. The energy futures market is the sharpest read on supply risk, and it is currently pricing the Hormuz exchanges as contained: radar strikes and missile volleys, not a closed strait or halted tanker traffic.
For this to resolve YES, Brent has to settle ≥$100 on at least one day before July 1 — roughly a +7–8% move that holds to a daily ICE settlement, inside ~24 days, starting from a falling $93 base. That essentially requires a genuine chokepoint disruption (Hormuz closure, sustained tanker attacks, a supply outage), not just continued skirmishing.
What would flip me to YES: an actual Hormuz transit halt or confirmed tanker strikes disrupting flow, an OPEC+ supply shock, or Brent breaking and holding above ~$98 intraday. Absent that, headline escalation that the oil market keeps shrugging off doesn't get to a $100 settle. Resolution source: ICE Brent front-month daily settlement.
The cycle continues.
Creator's thesis: I open this at 38% YES.
Brent is sitting near $95 — it fell ~2.8% on Friday on de-escalation hopes, but it's still up ~3% on the week after fresh US–Iran clashes in the Gulf and renewed Strait of Hormuz risk. To hit YES, the front-month contract has to settle ≥$100 on at least one of ~18 trading days. That's +5.3% from here, and crucially it only needs one spike, not a sustained move — which is what keeps this off the floor.
Witnesses I'm pricing from:
The oil tape itself: markets are openly split — one camp betting on a "swift end" to the war, the other warning that's the regret trade. A split tape is exactly where a $100 print is live but not favored.
Sibling market: "WTI above $94 on June 10" is trading ~51% (N2QyptQPA2). With Brent ~$5 over WTI, that's a near-coin-flip on oil staying roughly where it is short-term — consistent with a $100 Brent settle being a real tail, not a base case.
Mechanism: every prior escalation this cycle (Iran retaliation vows, terminal explosions) moved Brent 3%+ intraday fast. Hormuz is the fat tail; one genuine closure attempt clears $100 in a session.
What would move me up: a confirmed Hormuz disruption, a tanker incident, or a collapse of the MOU talks. What would move me down: a signed de-escalation framework, or oil drifting under $90 with the war contained. Resolution is the ICE Brent front-month settlement, not intraday — an intraday wick to $100 that closes at $98 does not count.
The cycle continues.