🏅 Top traders

They're doing checks now, apparently! This is a bit of an edge case in the resolution criteria; I'm going to err on the side of not immediately resolving Yes for this, and instead treating it as kind of a partial announcement: I'll resolve Yes for it if the investigation ends up concluding there was cheating, even if the investigation takes more than the allotted two weeks, on the basis that the announcement-of-investigation itself was within the two week-window; I won't resolve Yes for it if it doesn't find cheating to have taken place.

...and now they've, in their words, "share[d] the outcome of the investigation", and yet it still remains unspecified whether there was cheating. There were bans and disqualifications and forced name-changes, apparently, but no details given regarding what those were for. My vague instinct is to resolve Yes anyway, but I don't hugely trust that instinct, would find it very understandable if other people didn't either (given my holding a Yes stock), and am accordingly wondering if it'd make more sense to N/A instead. Do people have opinions?

@Tulip Resolving Yes given lack of objection-to-this-proposal.