Resolves YES if at least 1000 ground troops are deployed in Iran in 2026.
Resolves to a consensus of popular reporting. If there's an estimate like "about a thousand", that will be adequate, I don't want to litigate which of two independent estimates of 950 or 1050 troops are more accurate; I'll resolve in the spirit of the question.
I will not bet in this market (after initial bet to a reasonable probability).
1,000People are also trading
@bens how are you thinking of handling "inspectors" that are clearly politely named soldiers, but placed consensually under the peace treaty? I think that sounds more likely than a contested invasion at this point
@JTBooth "Resolves to a consensus of popular reporting" to me indicates that the broad description would have to be that it's a troop deployment. If CNN, FOX, BBC, etc. are generally saying it's inspectors then it shouldn't be enough to resolve Yes.
@JTBooth I guess it would depend how this plays out but I think inspectors would not constitute “troops”
What about the rescue operations where 100s of troops were deployed to Iranian soil and estimates place that 1000+ were directly involved in the operation? 155 planes were involved after all and there was a forward operating base within Iran.
I think it is fair that it doesn't count since actual boots on the ground is much less than 1000. But what if it comes to light a month later that there were 1000+ boots on the ground? (i.e. failed secret ground operation to steal Uranium and the pilot rescue was just a front or something like that) Then you'd resolve this to true?
@bens why is that specifically - I'm curious what developments there are causing this realization . I.e., what's the latest development
@GazDownright well, I think when I created it, the scenario seemed really unlikely (market priced it at about 15%) and now it seems eminently plausible