Trump renewed his ultimatum. What will be the outcome of this one?
Update 2026-04-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Major escalation by X will resolve Yes even if the escalation was done in retaliation to the other side escalating first (i.e., it is not limited to initiation of hostilities).
Update 2026-04-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 'Ultimatum is extended' answer will be resolved based on how things look after 4/6 10:05 AM.
Update 2026-04-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 'ultimatum expires with no significant change' answer refers to the ultimatum after all extensions have been exhausted, not just the original ultimatum.
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator is waiting to see how the situation fully develops before resolving major escalation answers, to avoid premature resolution.
Update 2026-04-07: The "announces a deal" market requires that the announcement say that a deal has been reached, not that they have a framework or rough draft of a deal.
Update 2026-04-07: "Trump announces a deal" and "Market 1" are resolving to yes in reference to the two-week ceasefire for Hormuz part of this tweet:
Update 2026-04-07: "Trump announces a deal that turns out to be real." is resolving to yes in reference to the two-week ceasefire and this confirmation from Iran:
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 'Trump announces a deal that turns out to be fake' answer can still resolve YES if another deal is announced after the 2-week ceasefire that turns out to be fake. The ceasefire deal being real does not automatically resolve this answer NO.
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 'Trump walks back ultimatum' answer resolves YES if, at the end of all deadlines, Trump unilaterally comes up with a reason to not go through with the threat.
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A deal counts as real even if it is eventually broken, as long as it was confirmed at the time (e.g., by Iran's Foreign Minister).
Update 2026-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz, that would resolve as 'Iran complies with the ultimatum's demands' or some kind of deal — not as 'Trump walks back the ultimatum'.
Update 2026-04-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The 'Diplomatic meeting between US and Iran' answer can resolve YES for an indirect meeting, but only if it actually happens officially.
Update 2026-04-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For 'Major escalation in military strikes by Israel/US': a naval blockade would count as a major escalation, but military strikes must also be part of the escalation for this answer to resolve YES.
1,000People are also trading
Other than the ones specifically about the ceasefire outcome, it feels kinda like the window for the other options is over by now, the ultimatum ended with a ceasefire deal, stuff happening now results from the disconnected stuff that followed afterwards (e.g. negotiations stalling, blockade) rather than that ultimatum itself
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn4v0xm9y0kt
Wait, what the hell? He did all this absolutely crazy stuff to get it unblocked (e.g. openly threatening to genocide the whole country), and now he's blocking it himself? I was joking when I said he might do it the other day!
@TheAllMemeingEye ok so now it seems the military itself is claiming it's a much less insane Iran-focused blockade, but the quoted wording from Trump really sounds like it's indiscriminate against the whole strait, this is so bizarre, the bar is on the floor and he still can't reach it
@GuyCohen I'd count a blockade as a major escalation, but would require "military strikes" to be a part of whatever escalation resolves this to yes.
@GuyCohen ok thanks for clarifying. There’s another market here with wording that the ceasefire ends with a peace agreement. Which is a bit confusing when also considering your market.
@minion7777777777 I was leaning towards resolving it yes when the ceasefire started, but I couldn't find an explicit statement by Iran that there had been no significant concessions from them, what's the best you can find for that?
I think I speak for most all of us when I say that Josh has been doing a good job at managing this market and has been receptive to our community input. I respect the stress they put themself through. Any given feedback was/is/will be just meant to help Josh reasonable resolve the market and I never mean to stress Josh out.
Some disagreements are natural (especially in a situation that keeps developing live and with such a confusing communication from both Iran and Trump) and those disagreements are not a deal-breaker or actually upsetting to me in any way lol. I hope Josh finds a way to manage this market that doesn't drive them insane, but if Josh doesn't wanna do it anymore that fine too ofc. Either way this has been fun so far :)
True, especially since its a market with open questions! The resolution criteria for things people put up isn't even there, he needs to interpret it on the fly. The situation is also extremely volatile. He's been very engaged with the traders.
He's been doing a great job
@GuyCohen @JoshSnider does this one have to be direct meeting between Iranians and Americans?
@JoshSnider Resolved yes due to Iran's reporting of it happening https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/04/11/3563156/iran-us-talks-kick-off-in-islamabad
could someone resolve this market? @JoshSnider ? Multiple sources are reporting the “shaky” ceasefire is still holding.
@GuyCohen Maintaining this market is a bit much for me, so I turned off "add new options" and was hoping to get one of the @mods to take over.