Any new options added under 'other' will not overlap at all with existing options.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/10/trump-campaign-hack-00173503
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ606 | |
| 2 | Ṁ242 | |
| 3 | Ṁ242 | |
| 4 | Ṁ227 | |
| 5 | Ṁ207 |
Resolving this to Iran based on statements from the US intelligence community, FBI, and Google's Threat Analysis Group
The Hacking of Presidential Campaigns Begins, With the Usual Fog of Motives https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/us/politics/trump-campaign-hacking-iran.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Realistically I don't think we'll know by market close, but this is my real guess.
The information they're claiming to have obtained sounds pretty milquetoast, and likely wouldn't do much damage in its own right (hard to say for sure since it isn't published, though). I suspect it would mainly play into narratives like "the trump campaign is being unfairly persecuted" or even "foreign interference with the election means the results are invalid". There's also the possibility that it's an insider trying to push out vance.
Does that hack have to be state actors to count for the countries listed, or would a citizen of Russia (for example) count? What level of evidence means resolving to "not known"? What about state proxies?
Not binding if I am wrong for now but I think I will count citizens of russia/iran/china, just because a very likely outcome is "this group that's linked to the X state but isn't proven to be part of that state did it"
Level of evidence: 'Consensus of credible reporting'
What exactly do you mean by state proxies?