🏅 Top traders

@johnleoks @higherLEVELING When I read the question, it implies it has to be state-sponsored— is that the intent? If so, what’s the burden of proof?

@Tyler31 how does the question imply it? in the examples he gives, which includes a politico article, that doesnt have any implication that it has to be state sponsored.

he even clarifies with a comment that says, dual use weapons, 2023 data

im not really sure how it's been implied that it's to be state-sponsored

@Tyler31 The market creator also states the linked Politico article doesn't count since it's from 2022. So the implication is that it need not be state sponsored.

@Akzzz123 A) exactly, I heard that implied but would prefer it be explicit. B) also, in the descriptions linked article the first sentence says “including one connected to the government in Beijing” so perhaps that is material

@higherLEVELING https://chat.openai.com/share/affafaa5-91a7-44d5-acae-57cc2a3d4b11

@johnleoks Because the articles at the time were focused on the dual use weapons of 2022, you said if there's data on 2023 dual use weapons being exported from china to Russia, this would resolve yes.

i have provided the article, which contains graphs specifically showing dual use weapons being sent to russia from china in 2023.

@johnleoks resolves yes

Resolves yes

China secretly sends enough gear to Russia to equip an army – POLITICO

Data of graphs taken from China and Ukraine customs 2023

The Politico article lists dual-use equipment, and states that it's already being sent from China to Russia. What would need to happen for the question to resolve Yes, then?

@PS Those were sent in 2022.

@johnleoks Ah, thanks. And if the deliveries didn't stop in December 2022, for example, this would resolve yes?

@PS As long as there are reports that China is still sending those weapons in 2023, this would resolve YES.