See this: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/10/trump-campaign-hack-00173503
Or this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/08/13/iran-email-hack-republicans-media-response/
This resolves YES if the Trump campaign leaks are published by a news outlet by the election.
If a different set of Trump campaign materials are later hacked/leaked and published, this will NOT resolve YES. It has to be the set of materials discussed publicly and in the news at the time of market creation (or any part of this set of materials).
If the campaign leaks are posted on some inaccessible torrent site or dark web thing or something like this, this will resolve NO. It has to be "published", although I will have a broad interpretation to what published means. It does not have to be in print, for example. Being posted on some sketchy website would likely still count.
If inconsequential or minor details from this leak are published online, this will also NOT cause a YES resolution. For instance, if it's published that a particular email is in the leak and the name of the sender is published, that would not be adequate. Actual substantial portions of the leaked documents must be published online, even if it's just, say, 10% of the leaked materials.
Edge cases and grey areas seem very possible in this market, so I will not bet in this market. I will try to avoid N/A resolution, and may instead resolve to a PROB/PERCENT, even if that seems counter-intuitive. I may consult with admins / mods / superusers on this site to come to a fair probability.
The close date for this market may be extended if it is unclear if the leaks have been published by the election, but will not be extended to see if they are published after the election.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,424 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,109 | |
| 3 | Ṁ226 | |
| 4 | Ṁ214 | |
| 5 | Ṁ182 |
Looks in all likelihood like this will resolve YES. I'm gonna wait a little bit to make sure that no funny business has happened, but I don't really see how these aren't the leaked documents in question unless someone like forged a fake version of the leaked documents and gave them to Ken or something bizarre like that.
@benshindel Ken’s Twitter account has been suspended but his Substack is safe.
I think the market is pretty calibrated but my steelman for NO: WP would publish it if it was anything significant. Since it's not significant, Iran's goal was to
a) get a potential leverage against Trump
b) pretend to fear Trump / like Harris (because they prefer Trump's foreign policy)
I can't bet this down, but this is surprisingly high in my opinion, given that the leaks have been extant for weeks but still no one has published them!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/08/13/iran-email-hack-republicans-media-response/
this article makes some decent points against publishing the material
Despite the reluctance of news outlets to publish material, if the hackers want the documents to be available online, they will be.
“They will eventually move down the food chain to find someone who will publish them,” Tofel said. “And if they fail at that, the internet being what it is, they can just publish it themselves.”
This argument seems to be bullish for YES, but I'm not entirely convinced this would happen 1) before the election or 2) at all, unless the content is SUPER revelatory.
edit: disregard
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
Why use play money?
Why use play money?Related questions
What is this?
What is Manifold?
Are our predictions accurate?
Why use play money?
Why use play money?