Measured to the date+time of the winner's announcement by TIME.
Days = 24 hours
Constitutes as leaking if any of the following happen:
-Clear, sustained market movement on Polymarket or Kalshi or even Manifold (especially if it's an option not listed on PM/Kalshi) indicating that the winner is known (the eventual winning option goes >80% for more than a transient spike)
-The leak is published in a newspaper / on a blog / etc with a well-described rationale of how they achieved the leak, and this is validated by later reporting.
-Other things that are really obviously leaks and are immediately apparent to people as a leak, that I haven't thought of.
I will not bet on this market. I'll extend the date until the announcement date/time is apparent or occurs.
Update 2025-11-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In edge cases where the timing of a leak is ambiguous (e.g., gradual market movements vs. sudden spikes), the creator may:
Consult analysis from Polymarket commentators and other expert sources
Resolve partially to different options if the leak timing is unclear
Update 2025-12-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For determining if Polymarket shows "clear, sustained market movement" indicating a leak: If TIME announces multiple winners (e.g., "Huang and Altman"), Polymarket will resolve to whichever person/thing is listed first according to their rules. This will be considered when evaluating whether Polymarket reached the >80% threshold for the winning option.
Update 2025-12-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For determining if Polymarket shows "clear, sustained market movement" indicating a leak: If TIME announces multiple winners (e.g., "Huang and AI"), Polymarket will resolve to whichever person/thing is listed first according to their rules. This will be considered when evaluating whether Polymarket reached the >80% threshold for the winning option.
Update 2025-12-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator will use judgment to determine what qualifies as a "transient" spike and whether the 80% threshold is met (accounting for bid-ask spreads). The creator reserves the right to resolve to a specific probability (PROB) rather than a single answer if appropriate.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Market movement on prediction markets that appears to be driven by the absence of a shortlist announcement (rather than insider knowledge of the actual winner) will not constitute a "leak" for resolution purposes, even if it causes significant price changes.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Market movement on prediction markets that appears to be driven by the absence of a shortlist announcement (rather than insider knowledge of the actual winner) will not constitute a "leak" for resolution purposes, even if it causes significant price changes.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): When evaluating whether market movement constitutes a "leak" under the criteria, the creator will consider whether traders' bets were directionally correct (i.e., whether they made money betting on the eventual winner). Market spikes where traders bet in the opposite direction of what would have been profitable will not be considered meaningful evidence of a leak.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Market movements driven by reactions to other TIME announcements (such as other "people of the year" categories) or the absence of a shortlist will not constitute a "leak" for resolution purposes, even if they cause significant price changes. Only movements driven by actual leaks of the cover or winner (such as explicit insider knowledge) will count toward the leak criteria.
Update 2025-12-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The cover leak (which occurred before the formal TIME announcement) will be considered the relevant leak for determining resolution timing. The market will resolve based on when the cover was leaked, not when TIME formally announces the winner.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ3,605 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,458 | |
| 3 | Ṁ608 | |
| 4 | Ṁ330 | |
| 5 | Ṁ329 |
@notrealDonaldTrump congratulations to all of you who know how to read a date 😂
I was too fast to think 😭
@creator
we have:
- Polymarket going from <20% at 10:35 CET to >80% at 10:40 CET
- Time announcement at 13:40 CET
It should resolve >30' <6h
i think the first report of the leak i could find is in the polymarket discord at 4:09pm ET
posted half an hour before the market move
https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/817444472009785366/1448421353043660881
Can you believe this leak is actually published right there on the Time Magazine website? I have a feeling those 'vibe coders' never actually intended for that to go public
@ItsMe I think there are many good reasons for that, and markets move for all kinds of reasons apart from explicit leaks. It’s pretty clear the latter leak was an actual leak of the cover. The former one was probably just people reacting to information about the other TIME “people of the year” and the lack of a shortlist.
@bens This is a fun market. I wish I saw if earlier, I'm surprised the odds "no >30 min leak" had.
@bens I was wondering if I misunderstood the conditions. How many contracts were negotiated at over 80%?
@bens You were talking about a spike that happened before the cover image leaked, but that never reached 80%, right?
The way I understood it was that, not having reached 80%, it wouldn't be sufficient for resolution, but I was confused why other traders didn't seem to understand it the same way.
@adonisds I don’t understand. the TIME POTY has still not been formally announced. The cover was a leak.
@bens ohhh I think I see what you’re saying. Nvm, ya, you’re talking about the prior bump. I agree, yes, it did not reach 80%. Although I guess it would have been annoying if that had turned out to be a leak and it had gotten up to 77% and then dropped and then gone back up to 80% or something. Then idk how I would have resolved
@ItsMe yeah I'm confused. I thought it leaked last night, and people think it will be announced Dec 11, so wouldn't that make it 1-2 days in advance?
@ImaPerson Some people probably think that it won't be "AI". Some people probably think that Ben won't count that as a leak. Some people like chaos.
Might require some judgement on my part folks, on what qualifies as “transient” spike and 80% (especially with bid ask spread, etc)… just fyi, I won’t be betting on the market of course and will try to do my best and be as objective as possible.
As always, I reserve the right to do a PROB resolution @traders
@bens if it turns out to be AI, would you consider the spike for no transparent reason yesterday as a “leak”? Even though it did not reach 80% exactly but it was a suspicious spike and resulted in big movements in manifold POTY market due to people suspecting that it was insider trade.
@Mochi I think it depends on continued market movement but I think most of the market movement comes from the lack of a shortlist which may not constitute as a “leak”
@ItsMe because the lack of a shortlist release gives information about what the eventual winner might be. Implies that it might not be a normal selection. If it was, say, the Pope or Jensen Huang, or something, it's likely that there would be a normal shortlist of 8 or so ppl, and one of them selected. But if it's "The AI Builders" or something, with 4 different ppl featured, it might not make the most sense to release a shortlist as well.
@bens I see, but a 80-90% chance of it being AI related just because of that? That'd be an insane update. There wasn't a shortlist in 2021 when Elon won it
@bens fair enough, you could argue the spike was normal market actions in correspondence to lack of shortlist and not really a leak.