Update 2025-10-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Resolves YES if Hamas and Israel both publicly agree simultaneously, in apparent good faith, to some version of Trump's plan.
Implementation is not required for resolution.
If there is substantial ambiguity about whether an agreement counts, the market will resolve N/A.
Update 2025-10-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Modifications to Trump's plan can still resolve YES if the plan's central points remain mostly intact.
Central points (per BBC listing): 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 16. Deals not including nearly all of these mostly intact will resolve NO or N/A.
Important but flexible: points 5, 9, 12, 15 may be modified without affecting resolution.
If the agreement is very different from the original (i.e., ambiguous whether it is Trump's plan), the market will resolve N/A.
Update 2025-10-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Point 6 is not core; modifications to it are allowed. If Point 6 is modified but most other central points are agreed to, the market can still resolve YES.
1,000People are also trading
I couldn’t spend much time today, but in the last 24 hours
++YES: scheduled Hamas and Insrael indirect negotiation talks for tomorrow
+YES: negotiators from several countries travelled to Egypt for the peace talks
+NO: Israel kept bombing
+YES: Trump: "we don't need flexibility because everybody has pretty much agreed to it, but there will always be some changes"
What major driver did I miss that justify this market going from a peak of 80% to 20% in these 24 hours?
@MiguelLM Clarification that Hamas refusing to disarm would resolve this as no (which really should've been understood in the first place).
@ShawnReynolds Would that resolve it as a no? They will have accepted the deal in nearly all conditions except the most crucial one. We don't use this argument to say that Israel refused the Oslo Accords, when it accepted them while continuing its violation of the conditions of territorial sovereignty created.
Edit: The disarmament would fulfil Point 6 of the plan.
6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.
@ae Can Point 6 be modified without affecting resolution?
@Chumchulum The disarmament point is point 13, which the creator confirmed is a central point that would need to be survive mostly intact.
@ShawnReynolds thanks for the hint
if Hamas refuses to disarm then Trump and Israel will not accept this version of the plan, which would also resolve as NO even without yesterday’s clarification.
It didnt change my forecast so much.
Doesn't the creator clarification state it would be No or N/A?
@Chumchulum if 6 were modified but most of all of the rest were agreed to, that could resolve YES. Doesn't feel as core as some of the other points
Betting no because Israel is a facist ethostate and will not accept any deal that doesn't allow them to continue oppressing.
@MichaelTardibuono Huh? Israel already accepted Trump's deal. This market is about if Hamas will accept it.
(A "fascist ethnostate" where Arabs voted for an Arab party that was part of the previous government...)
@MichaelTardibuono if this follows the pattern of previous ceasefire negotiations (Hamas agrees to everything except what would leave them defenseless, this is a red line for Israel, it begins another bombing/assassination campaign, Hamas also goes back to fighting, media blame Hamas, repeat), you will be correct, but for the wrong direct reasons.
It would have been interesting to have a copy of this market, but it resolves to the percentage of points agreed to by both parties. 5% for each, or probably better: 10% for the major ones, 5% for the other important ones and 2% for each of the others.
(I notice this is the first example of a market where I can really see the value from "having a market at all is good, even if there will be ambiguities" and/or "sometimes it makes sense to resolve to a percentage". Pinging @dreev I made an update in your direction here.)
@Primer fair point. I wasn't aware of the % resolve feature when I created this market. Had I known about it, I might have chosen different resolution criteria. Feel free to create such a market yourself! At the very least, there will be some sweet sweet arbitrage for a bit.
@ae Probably an unlinked "Which of those 20 points in Trump's peace deal will be agreed upon?" with 20 individual options would be the best format.
Anyways, I'm not brave enough for running a market on such a vague peace proposal. Of course anyone can take up the idea!
@Marnix It's hard to give a justified, unobjectionable percentage. So unless there is some weird situation, I would resolve NA in most edge cases.
You might argue that, if the stated reason Hamas does not agree is a single deal point that was considered to be a "minor" point, a high-% resolution is justified. But all parties are presumably engaging in counterparty-modeling several layers deep, so the "true" reason would be obscured and likely not trivial at all. Hence my preference for NA in such cases.
Feel free to try to persuade me otherwise.
@ae It should resolve to the market percentage it currently is or that it is at the time of resolution. This way you will not wipe out the profits of those who have already cashed out their profitable positions and no longer hold expected profits.
@Chumchulum I'll extend the resolution timeline if there isn't some clarity by Tuesday. Unlikely to % resolve (see other comments of mine).
@Chumchulum I don't think you should be trying to convince the creator there is an additional cost to resolving it in the manner he deams appropriate.
@StephenFowler28ac I hadn't considered that. Don't worry, thrice before I have seen others who are not the market creator generally willing to spot or loan users their previously cashed-out profits that are NAed. I would much rather be paid by a neutral mod or a whale.