This market asks: Which happens first – a Chinese full-scale military invasion of Taiwan (main island or significant territory seizure) OR a U.S. military invasion/occupation of any part of Greenland OR formal U.S. acquisition/control transfer (purchase, annexation, etc.)?
- "Invade" for Taiwan: PLA launches amphibious/air assault to seize/control territory (blockades/gray-zone ops don't count unless they escalate to boots-on-ground occupation).
- "Invade/acquire" for Greenland: U.S. forces occupy territory OR binding agreement transfers sovereignty/control of any part (per related markets like "US acquires part of Greenland").
- "First" = earlier confirmed start date of qualifying action (via official statements, major news consensus like Reuters/AP/BBC, or gov announcements).
- If neither qualifies by close date → resolves to "Neither".
Update 2026-02-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Greenland basing rights clarification: Gaining control over only a U.S. military base, expanding basing rights, or renewing existing base access does not count as qualifying for the Greenland side. Routine basing agreements, leases, or increased access at existing bases do not trigger resolution.
1,000“Good question — no, gaining control over only a U.S. military base (or expanding/renewing basing rights) wouldn’t count by itself. For the Greenland side to qualify, it needs to be a U.S. invasion/occupation of Greenland territory or a binding agreement that transfers sovereignty/control of any part of Greenland to the U.S. (purchase/annexation/formal control transfer). Routine basing agreements, leases, or ‘more access’ at an existing base = does not trigger.”