🏅 Top traders

Resolves YES based on the article linked by @mint + lack of credible opposing narratives I could find from reputable sources just now + lack of objections from traders in this market.

Any updates, @jskf? Don't want to rush the objection process, but it would be nice to get some more liquidity before the New Years markets resolve.

@mint Sorry, I kind of forgot about it. Reading the full article now. Will look around a bit for other narratives after and maybe ask some people and then decide.

Just released: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/putin-patrushev-plan-prigozhin-assassination-428d5ed8

>Nikolai Patrushev, a top ally of the Russian leader for decades, put in motion the assassination of the mutinous chief of the Wagner mercenary group.

Sufficient to resolve as YES? Seems to fit your criteria and "reputable news company."

@jskf Archive link and meaty section:

After the mutiny, the Kremlin did little publicly to limit Prigozhin’s life. He traveled to Africa to check in on his operations there. He was also allowed to continue working in St. Petersburg and around Russia, said Maksim Shugaley, who worked for Prigozhin at a think tank. But, he said, Prigozhin was wary. “He knew he had enemies and that something could happen to him, but as far as he was concerned he was abiding by the deal,” Shugaley said. 

Mowatt-Larssen, the former CIA station chief, said that Prigozhin might have appeared to be free, when in fact he was being closely watched. His mutiny had exposed a deep rift in Putin’s system of running the country, as well as dissatisfaction in the military, which had done little to oppose his march, he said. “You can see what Putin’s plan was—to keep the dead man walking so they could continue to find out what happened,” he said, meaning the Kremlin was looking for Prigozhin’s collaborators. 

In the beginning of August, as most of Moscow went on vacation, Patrushev, in his office in central Moscow, gave orders to his assistant to proceed in shaping an operation to dispose of Prigozhin, said the former Russian intelligence officer. Putin was later shown the plans and didn’t object, Western intelligence agencies said. Several weeks later, following his tour through Africa, Prigozhin was waiting at a Moscow airport while safety inspectors finished a check on the plane. It was during this delay that a small bomb was placed under the wing, said Western intelligence officials.

The article has a lot of other details and sources, but in just this section the story of a named former Prigozhin employee, a named former CIA station chief, and Western intelligence sources have their story aligned and published by WSJ. This is probably as good of a confirmation you can get without the Kremlin outright admitting in. I see no reason why this shouldn't be sufficient to resolve as YES.

@mint I don't see an actual archive link in your comment, but this looks like it could be sufficient to resolve YES. I've closed the question for now while I give people time to object.

@traders see above

@jskf my bad, here it is: https://archive.is/FHSTG

@jskf Seems legit to me.

@mint this thing reeks of fairy tale to me, but I don't care to contest it and have no real stake in the markets on this

@jskf how would this resolve if bombs were planted before takeoff?

Planted bombs would count as sabotage.

That other market has a "Mechanical/Technical failure" official explanation at 37% currently: https://manifold.markets/Simon74fe/what-will-be-the-cause-of-the-prigo

If the official Russian technical investigation claims mechanical/technical failure as the root cause, would this resolve this market? (and which way)

@BarrDetwix Market will not resolve based on (only) claims from Russia.

What counts as confirmation (of sabotage)? It sounds kinda hard to prove.

I fear trying to make this precise now is more likely to lead to a highly contested resolution than deferring to my future judgment. If you have suggestions for criteria, or hypotheticals you would like me to evaluate, let me know.

@jskf Well specifically, do anonymous statements, purportedly from intelligence officials, containing zero details, count? See: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/plane-crash-believed-killed-russian-mercenary-chief-kremlins-102523871

This level of information could remain indefinitely; intelligence agencies won't necessarily want to say how they make their assessments.

US intelligence assessment shows intentionally caused explosion crashed Wagner chief's plane

A preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment has found that the plane crash presumed to have killed Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin was intentionally caused by an explosion

I definitely won't resolve the market now based on just this article, but will look into it more later. I probably at least want some more details, from a non-"preliminary" report.

I do take the claim that the statements are from intelligence officials basically at face value. The way this is phrased I would expect a reputable news company to have verified it, and an anonymous (but verified) leak could in principle resolve this YES.

@jskf So, is it correct that this market resolves to YES if we have no new trustworthy information that contradicts the sabotage hypothesis? Even if we don't get more than the intelligence officials assessment saying it was likely caused by an explosion.

@theservy No, if no new information comes out I think it's unlikely I will resolve this YES, but I haven't had time to carefully look at all the reporting.

Does "being shot by air defense" counts as sabotage?

@SebastianWorms yes

This market should be strictly above the other one about it being shot down, given that being shot down also counts. Not sure people realize that.

On a more serious note, does that require him being actually on board?

@CodeandSolder for the conditional, yes. If it turns out he wasn't on board this will N/A.

@jskf Do you consider that he was on board true?

@MrLuke255 Very likely yes, but I'll look into it more carefully before resolving.