Will Trump be indicted by March 31? [Polymarket question, see details]
resolved Apr 3

This market will resolve to “Yes” if any Federal or State jurisdiction of the United States unseals or otherwise officially announces a criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump before the resolution time March 31, 2023, 11:59:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to “No”.

Please note, for purposes of this market, the District of Columbia and any county, municipality, or other subdivision of a State shall be included within the definition of a State.
Note also, that an indictment that has been issued before the resolution time but remains sealed or otherwise secret at the resolution time will not be considered in this market.

Resolution criteria from https://polymarket.com/event/will-donald-j-trump-be-indicted-by.

Edit just to be clear: This market will resolve the same as Polymarket.

Mar 30, 8:32pm: Will Trump be indicted by March 31? → Will Trump be indicted by March 31? [Polymarket question, see details]

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:

I want to note the user on polymarket who resolved this, named "Dear Lord", basically got banned from discord and isn't running any major future markets due to his misresolution.

predicted NO

Polymarket has resolved YES.

predicted NO

Some general commentary, mostly copied from below:

I think it's important to note that while this Polymarket question turned out to have badly written criteria that contained an unexpected contradiction, and that is an issue that does occasionally happen for questions with detailed resolution criteria, it's far more common for underspecified questions to have issues and be ambiguous.

The questions that just said "Will Trump be indicted by March 31?" all could easily have been ambiguous, e.g.

  • what if he was indicted at 1 am Eastern on April 1?

  • what if he was indicted in another country?

  • what if the grand jury had voted to indict on March 31 but the news didn't break until April 1?

Those are all cases that the other questions would have been ambiguous and this one would not have been. Unfortunately, the question turned out to be ambiguous in a different way. But it's still almost always better to specify the question in more detail.

bought Ṁ50,000 of YES

@jack, resolves yes

bought Ṁ10 of YES

Polymarket comments indicate the oracle has voted YES. Thanks everyone for one hell of a ride...

predicted YES

@ScottLawrence I'm glad it resolved YES, I think that's the resolution that best follows from the resolution criteria.

predicted YES

@jack I keep missing the polymarket site and posting false things. Apparently voting isn't over yet--6 hours to go.

bought Ṁ1,000 of YES

Cross market arb

sold Ṁ2,848 of YES

Polymarket's YES price is down to 65 cents, so I sold.

@ScottLawrence Nevermind, now it's 97. I give the *!@# up.

predicted YES

@ScottLawrence I was about to get myself a bunch of mana to correct your mispricing.

predicted NO

@ScottLawrence I also saw 64% before it updated to 97%. Must be some glitch with Polymarket.

bought Ṁ2,000 of YES

@Gabrielle That's good to hear, because I thought I had hallucinated for a moment there.

predicted YES

the predictable result of "three felonies a day" + "trump derangement syndrome" is that the most liberal DAs in the most liberal places find stuff to charge him on credibly, just barely.

predicted YES

trump has a long history of brashly disregarding the law. 3 felonies for day is for pussies, real men do 30 [not intended to be partisan, 'trump breaks the law a lot' was a reasonable statement in 2012]

predicted YES

@JonathanRay I find it pretty sad that this is what he is being indicted for. Of all the crimes committed by current and former presidents, from waging wars under false pretenses, to recklessly bombing areas, to just flat out murdering people, let alone massive amounts of corruption, a small payment seems to be completely insignficant.

predicted YES

@MarcusAbramovitch How can it be a campaign finance violation to spend your own money supporting your own campaign by paying some pornstar to shut her big fat mouth? Even if it was channeled through a lawyer for secrecy or whatever, it's a big fat nothingburger.

predicted NO

@JonathanRay The crime is falsifying business information - the crime isn't the hush money, but recording it as something other than hush money. On it's own, it's just a misdemeanor, just a nothingburger, like you said. However, if they can prove that it was in service of another crime, then it's a felony. Since the DA wouldn't go after him for a misdemeanor, they must also be indicting him for a different crime or crimes as well. We don't know yet what that is (we should sometime next week), but there are supposedly 34 separate charges on the indictment.

bought Ṁ300 of NO

@JonathanRay right, the only crime is in the coverup, ala Monica Lewinsky.

predicted YES

@JonathanRay I think we are in agreement. This is a pretty ridiculous indictment

bought Ṁ1,000 of YES

To anyone who doesn't know, Polymarket uses UMA to decide markets. There is a discord for it where the UMA holders/voters are explaining their reasoning for their votes and they all seem to be in agreement that this resolves YES and is shifting the market accordingly. Furthermore, some are considering https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status/1641836564975177728 to be further proof of an unsealing.

bought Ṁ0 of YES

@MarcusAbramovitch seems like solid evidence to me. I don't get why polymarket is still trading so low.

predicted NO

For those who don't want to predict on the uncertainty of how Polymarket resolves, I totally understand and that's an unfortunate surprise for me as well as you, but that's how it goes sometimes.

I'll make this offer for those who hold YES and don't want to wait on that uncertainty: If you want, I'll buy your shares from you at cost or at 80% (which is above current market price), whichever is better for you, until I run out of NO shares I currently have. I'll just set a limit order which you can feel free to fill. (Note this is a loss for me, if I were just profit seeking I wouldn't offer to buy so high).

I think such an offer is less relevant for the NO holders, whose shares are probably worth more than they initially expected.

And just want to note, the bad resolution criteria here are obviously Polymarket's fault, and theoretically I could have noticed the problems but we all know how hard that is to spot in advance. I will probably make more Polymarket mirror markets in the future and include more language about what exactly happens in Polymarket resolution edge cases.

sold Ṁ147 of YES

@jack I think it's difficult to blame you here. You have resolution criteria unlike the other markets. I was the one who made the mistake of not realizing their equivalence.

bought Ṁ200 of YES

Not realizing their unequivalence. Now you see why I lose mana on this site.

predicted YES

@jack, in general, i wish to see more markets with resolution criteria, clearly stated (even if it leads to confusion sometimes) than a market with little to no resolution criteria that resolves ambiguously

sold Ṁ72 of NO

@jack I got hit particularly badly and am not in the group of NO-buyers from the start. Kindly buy my NO at cost-for-me (80ish I think?) so that you can keep up your efforts.

predicted NO

@lorxus I calculated from your profile, your average cost was at 85%. You can set a yes order there and I'll fill it.

bought Ṁ0 of YES

@jack I calculate average at 83%. I assume that's acceptable and will be setting large limit orders there.

bought Ṁ1,500 of YES

@jack thank you!

bought Ṁ1,000 of YES

@lorxus I didn't mean to get in your guys way

predicted YES

Based on everything i have read in the UMA discord, unless some giant UMA holder comes along, this will resolve YES. Polymarket currently gives 89-91% spread. I think closer to 94-96% is reasonable without risk aversion

bought Ṁ600 of NO

@MarcusAbramovitch I set a buy at the same price, if you could sell the extra shares you got there, thanks

predicted YES

@jack I'm confused with how many shares I got

predicted YES

Ill dm you

predicted YES

@jack Genuinely, thank you. I'm not new to explicit reasoning or the idea of prediction markets, but I am new to being here and understanding community norms. Had you not done that I was seriously considering throwing in the towel here and finding a different site, or putting prediction market activity on hold indefinitely. I only hope I can be as magnanimous in my market-resolutions towards others in future.

bought Ṁ574 of YES

@lorxus Glad to hear that. People on Manifold are often generous, but do keep in mind that most prediction markets, both on Manifold and elsewhere, just try to follow the specified criteria as well as possible, and sometimes you end up stuck with no good choices, and it isn't really anybody's fault in particular. Or more often it's something like having a market resolve against you in a way that is clearly correct but feels like a dumb technicality. Just have to accept some amount of that because turning the real world with all its complexities into a yes or no question is really hard!