@mods I'd like somone other than me (biased) too look at this, but seems to early to say whether trump is tweet with "some regularity" rather than a set of tweets in 1 day.

maybe @benjaminIkuta can say what he based his resolution decision off of, first?

(commenting as a bettor not a mod obv)

Oh seemingly he did make a 5 in 2 weeks comment. But still.

yeah that was what the earlier discussion was hinging on, but all that was happening independent of Benjamin's perspective

This seems fine to me. The criteria of "five in two weeks" was met, and it's dangerous to resolve these sorts of markets based on vibes.

I guess I can see the argument that it doesn't align with the description, but that seems well within market creator discretion to me

I think that clarification was a mistake with respect to the spirit of the amrket, and it's unfortunate it was in a comment and not the description, but precedent is that clarifications like that are what count

@benjaminIkuta We are up to 5 posts in a period of 2 weeks. This can resolve YES, thank you!

I'm a yes holder so I'm on the side of a yes resolution, but what does "in a period of 2 weeks" mean? he just started tweeting again today.

While technically correct, I think it is very clearly against the spirit of "with some regularity".

I would probably lean toward resolving YES since this case wasn't accounted for, but I also support needing it to be posts in separate weeks or something. A bit icky changing resolution criteria now, admittedly 😬

Several on one or two days just to please Elon on day of interview is not "with some regularity".

I think the 5 in 2 weeks should mean total over 5 with a gap of at least 2 weeks from first to last.

I don't disagree overall, but Benjamin didn't specify a cadence or span of time when he wrote the "5 in two weeks" comment, so some may interpret this as a pretty late stage to change or refine the criteria, particularly when it seems ready to resolve.

again, I acknowledge my bias as a Yes holder (I'm commenting as a bettor not a mod) and I'm of course not resolving on his behalf if he doesn't reply in the next couple of days.

I'm a YES holder only because I clicked in and read the criteria provided by the market creator in the comments and saw that it had been met.

The Tesla reaches $275 market did not resolve yes when after hour price reached over $300 in a spike in after hours trading when after hours trading was clearly included in the rules. I would suggest this is somewhat similar.

There is a need to understand what is or should have been meant.

He could have just specified a total of 5 posts, However he actually included a period as well. What is the purpose of doing that? Is it so that 5 posts in one hour is not enough? If so that suggests the period is a minimum despite being written as "5 in 2 weeks" The alternative would be for it to exclude 10 posts each at exactly 15 day intervals. That would be with unusually high regularity and clearly that should count. So it makes no sense to interpret the 2 weeks as a maximum limit so it has to be a minimum limit.

Incidentally I have no holdings just saying what I see and think.

personally, I think it's reasonable to just wait until the creator is online and responds rather than making it a big comment debate amongst ourselves.

that said, I don't think this and the TSLA market are one and the same (even if I understand where you're suggesting the similarity). I'm a little curious about why you're invested in debating the outcome without a position here 😅 but ultimately it will be good to hear from Benjamin when he sees this and weighs in.

to add: I would understand if Benjamin said, for example, that Trump should tweet on more than this single day, and I agree 'with some regularity' doesn't entirely match up with his clarification of 'at least five in two weeks' without more specificity.

but I think now (when someone has requested resolution based on what was clarified before) to start to detail "x posts in 14 days, resolving after a 2 week period from the first post to ensure regularity" or similar would be extreme, even if I agree that it would have been a very reasonable criteria to have on this market initially.

ftr: intention is important context for market resolutions, of course!

@MickBransfield 🤔

@mattyb I think once he cashed in on DWAC, Trump immediately goes back to Twitter.

Can you define regularity more precisely? Ex. If he makes at least X posts in a period of Y days between now and November 8, 2024?

@JoshuaHedlund Okay, let's say at least five in two weeks

@BenjaminIkuta Start tweeting should just be once.

@shankypanky Exact criteria is met. 👍

ah I see - this probably should have been added to the description but yes, I agree it's ready to resolve based on this @benjaminIkuta