NATO membership requires every country to ratify accession and deposit the signed treaties with America. This question will resolve when Sweden themselves + all NATO countries have ratified Sweden's accession.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ3,509 | |
| 2 | Ṁ3,115 | |
| 3 | Ṁ748 | |
| 4 | Ṁ664 | |
| 5 | Ṁ643 |
According to swedish state television Sweden expects to be members tomorrow: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/senaste-nytt-i-nato-processen?inlagg=634433a58cf25a33878533eb8cc82fb7
@BrunoParga I disagree that the criteria has "always been clear and unambiguous". Settling on a certain professional interpretation is not the same as that having always been firm and accessible. I kept my position earlier this week on the impression that we are now in the "split between months" scenario from the "agreed to ratify" discussion.
@Panfilo I want to use the following as an illustration, so please bear with me. In the 4th quarter of Super Bowl LVIII, the San Francisco 49ers were down 3 points when they scored a touchdown. The subsequent extra point attempt was blocked.
Why am I bringing up this entirely unrelated fact? If someone does not know about American football, the sentence above means fairly little. For someone who does know the game, there is a decent amount of meaning to the blocked attempt: the Kansas City Chiefs had a much easier task ahead of them than if the attempt had succeeded, even though that only makes one point of difference on the scoreboard.
So, the reason I am bringing this up is related to this market: it can happen that something is clear and unambiguous, if someone has the necessary knowledge. The fact that a person without the necessary knowledge does not immediately get it is immaterial.
Now, of course someone can claim that they have no obligation to know what exactly ratification means, and that is true; but it is equally true that they have no obligation to trade in this market either. They voluntarily chose to do so. If prediction markets are not about people becoming more aware of the limits of their knowledge and acting accordingly, they're about little else, in my view.
@shankypanky there are still several steps that Hungary needs to take, I've commented extensively on that. You can see the comments on my profile ☺️
@such @BrunoParga Let's get potential conflicts of interest out of the way first: I have a small (~300 MANA) February stake. If I end up being wrong in my prediction and lose this, it is what it is. Would be nice to see all those who have tried to change market creators mind clarify this.
But, it's not in spirit of Manifold to try to convince the market creator to change their mind about the market this late in the game. We have 100 traders and this may resolve in a soon as a few days. The market creator even clarified the resolution criteria of the market, yet 1 or 2 people still tried to change their mind. In the comments before that, the consensus from those that commented was clearly not the latest interpretation. That means recent trading on this market has just been about who has seen the market creators comments fastest, and who was able to change their mind, not the actual question. That's always a red flag for a market.
Let's remember that it's usually impossible to make the resolution criteria fully clear in the title, so when a market has a description, that is what traders should reference.
The description before the latest reversion a few hrs ago was (although even the latest revision doesn't change the core meaning):
NATO membership requires every country to ratify accession and deposit the signed treaties with America. This question will resolve when Sweden themselves + all NATO countries have agreed to ratify Sweden's accession.
I read this to be the creator clarifying 2 things, each sentence having a special purpose:
The creator specifies what NATO membership requires (every countries ascent + the deposit of signed treaty with America).
The actual resolution criteria in the second sentence, which is easier and just that Sweden + all NATO countries have agreed to ratify Sweden's accession (such as through parliamentary votes, and yes, presidential ascent. I never understood this to be only about parliamentary votes).
It turns out my interpretation might not have been what the creator's spirit of the market was (they were more concerned about not worrying about the bureaucratic part after everything is decided), but the end result of our interpretations ended up being the same. But I don't see how it can be argued based on this description that this requires the formality steps / letter in the mail.
Unfortunately, this market is already really messy so it's hard to determine a way forward. I see the likely outcome as this being N/A'd, either by the creator (which is maybe closest to the "right" way which would make the least people unhappy), or by the mods if there is too much controversy about the creator resolving it. That being said, I don't think it needs to be N/A'd yet. I don't think there's anything wrong with waiting to see whether the debate we've been having even matters. If the parliament vote doesn't happen this month, well GG, me and all the other February bettors lost fair and square. On the other hand, if everything happens this month, nobody would argue we didn't win fair and square. It's just the (unfortunately somewhat likely) overlapping part that one side wouldn't be happy.
@mint I guess I'm included in the people trying to influence the market creator. And yes, I've had a reasonably large March position throughout this discussion.
I won't answer every point, and maybe won't even be helpful, but a few thoughts below:
– Thanks for writing an elaborate and well-considered comment with friendly tonality.
– Good point about a parliament/presidential stall into March making resolution unambiguous. That way we could all be friends again, jointly and joyfully ignoring Manifold's resolution issues =)
– I think your 2-sentence approach is a reasonable one to take, but I don't think it's conclusive evidence. I could make some similar more-or-less acrobatic interpretation that would show the opposite, though. For example, I would be disappointed if an admin used such language to resolve this either way.
– If there are such a thing as "two sides", I think it's fair for them to try to influence the ultimately deciding market creator. It ain't pretty, but it seems like the right way to go in a marketplace of ideas. Yes, there is a point in us being able to influence a market creator, which would to some extent measure some sort of eloquence/persuasion over prediction in an unwanted way.
– I don't think trading on comments is wildly different from trading on news. Indeed, they have similar potential downsides sometimes.
– An N/A resolution here wouldn't feel outrageous to me.
@mint I think the market has always been very clear, given that one knows the correct technical meaning of ratification.
I think markets in general, including this one, should be resolved with the least amount of interpretation possible, and the strictest adherence to the letter of the question and description. Given the correct technical meaning of ratification, anyone claiming for a different resolution, other than when Sweden deposits its accession, is claiming for more interpretation, for the word ratification not to be taken in its clear, unambiguous, not-subject-to-interpretation technical meaning.
I think people are often very confused about this technical meaning and don't automatically know it, and that is okay, you can't expect people to. I myself am very ignorant about, well, pretty much every topic, except for a couple where I have the actual training to know what technical words mean.
However, I don't think that people being unaware of the meaning of a word should cause a market to be incorrectly resolved, or being N/A'd. I think it is incumbent on traders to check if they actually fully understand the meaning of a market before trading. Caveat emptor.
@such has said they'll resolve based on the correct technical meaning, and I think that is a Schelling point that's good to apply to any market.
@BrunoParga Thank you for your explanations, I must concur. Ratification technically includes informing other parties. The market is about ratification, not just about approval by legislative body, as is this Metaculus clone https://manifold.markets/mirrorbot/metaculus-will-the-national-assembl
@mint just due to all of the controversy and due to what I think is my personal blame for all of this by not providing a more specific description at the outset of the market, I was already considering N/Aing it...I'm going to wait and see what happens (with how Sweden's NATO accession has been going so far this market might end up resolving to July or beyond), but if what ends up happening is a situation where one interpretation would be resolved in late February and the other in early March, I think the least bad option would be just to N/A the market.
@such Bureaucratic processes are brutal for time sensitive prediction markets. I appreciate that we got a legitimate diplomat to help clarify things, but that back and forth clarification just came so late in the process. I think future similar markets (and ongoing markets like those about the next NATO member!) will benefit from having these discussions and policies in place sooner.
alright, to clear up Confusion: The Sequel: I am deferring to the judgment of the former diplomat in my comment section (Manifold never ceases to amaze me) and resolving this market based on when Sweden ratifies by placing their deposit...I think this most accurately captures what I was trying to judge when creating this market, and also is in line with the title "become ratified" and the "Sweden themselves + all NATO countries" in the description. To make it more clear going forward, I changed the language in the market description from "agreed to ratify" to "ratified".
I think the market creator should always have final say into what the resolution ought to be, when there are disagreements about the correct interpretation like in this case.
> I think this most accurately captures what I was trying to judge when creating this market
but in the previous comment you said:
> The "spirit of the market" was to try to identify when NATO could get its shit together and agree to let Sweden in
Am I misunderstanding, that these are contradictory claims? I'm confused
to clear up confusion: @BrunoParga & @papa are right, I'm resolving this to when Hungary fulfills the presidential assent aspect, not to simply when their parliament votes it through.
The "spirit of the market" was to try to identify when NATO could get its shit together and agree to let Sweden in. Hungary's Presidential assent is part of that, but after that's completed, "all NATO countries have agreed to ratify" and I'll resolve--I'm not worried about/counting the extra bureaucratic days after that where the fancy letters are in transit, hence why the market was "become ratified" and not "joins".
in retrospect, not sure what I was thinking--I can definitely see how the "agree to ratify" in the description would create confusion with the "become ratified" in the market title. Happy to refund anyone if they were misled
@HenriThunberg The market was intended to resolve on when the deposit letter was sent, not received. Once Hungary votes it through their parliament and the presidential assent happens, their deposit will be sent, which would satisfy the resolution requirements.
For example, Turkey's parliament voted Sweden in on Jan. 23, the presidential decree occurred on the 25th, and the deposit letter was received on the 26th, which is the date that shows up on Wikipedia. If the market were by day and not month, I would have resolved Turkey's "agreement to ratify" to the 25th, not the 26th when the letter was actually received in America.
Basically, I'm resolving this to when Step 4 from the NATO website is complete.
Once Hungary votes it through their parliament and the presidential assent happens, their deposit will be sent, which would satisfy the resolution requirements.
The (deposit of the instrument of) ratification is a different and separate act from Presidential assent. I wrote in more detail about this here: https://manifold.markets/FernandoFrancoFelix/will-hungary-finally-let-sweden-joi#i4vn6x55b9
I called the instrument a "fancy letter", but you shouldn't picture this as a letter in the mail. The way this will likely happen is a note verbale sent by the Hungarian Embassy in DC to the State Department. That does not automatically happen when the President gives their assent.
If you look at the Wiki page, it took Montenegro a month and a half between when Presidential assent was granted and when the government (which is a separate institution from the Presidency) decided to act and instruct the Embassy to ratify.
If you think I am right (and I think you should, because I am a former diplomat, I worked with this kind of stuff, so I am speaking from technical expertise), then you should wait until Sweden ratifies, and my first comment on this thread (https://manifold.markets/such/when-will-sweden-become-ratified-in#05jxipbejbqs) explains why.
@such and yes I would like a refund if the resolution is anything other than the month when the Swedish ratification happens. (Meaning, the deposit of the instrument of ratification, because that is the only thing ratification really means.)
The title of the market is slightly ambiguous. A state does not "become ratified into NATO" in the strict sense. The Accession Protocol becomes ratified and then the state becomes member ("into Nato" ) after all accession instruments are deposited with the US Government.
Market description resolves this ambiguity, stating clearly: "This question will resolve when Sweden themselves + all NATO countries have agreed to ratify Sweden's accession." As all other countries have done their part, as soon as Hungary ratifies the accession protocol, "Sweden themselves + all NATO countries have agreed to ratify Sweden's accession", as required to resolve the market.
If you look at the market history, initial wording was even more clear in this regard.
Of course, @such has the final word here.
@papa basically, we're looking for the Deposited date of this box in the Sweden-NATO wiki page, right? Or, which is the same in Finland's case, just the official "member since" date on the top of the page.
@HenriThunberg As I read the terms, we are looking at Hungary's Presidential Assent date, after which "all NATO countries have agreed to ratify Sweden's accession".
@papa at the very least it needs the Hungarian deposit date, which is mentioned in the description. What's more ambiguous is whether "all countries" includes Sweden or not.
@papa you are generally correct. However:
As all other countries have done their part, as soon as Hungary ratifies the accession protocol, "Sweden themselves + all NATO countries have agreed to ratify Sweden's accession", as required to resolve the market.
That is not the case.
Currently, there is the North Atlantic Treaty, between 31 countries. Any State that is a Party of that treaty is a member of the organization it establishes, NATO.
There is also a separate treaty, called the "Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden". Its text can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62daafca8fa8f56496f81ee8/MS_7.2022_Prot_NATO_Sweden.pdf
The relevant parts are as follows:
ARTICLE I
Upon the entry into force of this Protocol, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation shall, on behalf of all the Parties, communicate to the
Government of the Kingdom of Sweden an invitation to accede to the North Atlantic
Treaty. In accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty, the Kingdom of Sweden shall
become a Party on the date when it deposits its instrument of accession with the
Government of the United States of America.
ARTICLE II
The present Protocol shall enter into force when each of the Parties to the North
Atlantic Treaty has notified the Government of the United States of America of its
acceptance thereof. The Government of the United States of America shall inform
all the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty of the date of receipt of each such
notification and of the date of the entry into force of the present Protocol.
The Protocol is not yet in force; it has 30 ratifications out of 31 Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty who need to ratify it.
Once Hungary ratifies the Protocol, the condition for it entering into force, set out in Article II, is fulfilled. Then, in accordance with Article I, the Secretary-General will send a formal invitation to the government of Sweden to accede to (=become a party of) the North Atlantic Treaty.
Sweden has voted internally on the matter, but in international law that doesn't mean anything, because Sweden is not yet a country that is allowed to join (accede to) the North Atlantic Treaty. Countries can only join by invitation. Sweden literally cannot act on it yet.
Once Hungary ratifies, this causes the SG to invite Sweden, which allows Sweden to deposit an instrument of accession.
Once that happens, then Sweden is a member. It could take a few minutes/hours after Hungary ratifies, it could take a few days. In practice it won't be much longer than that, but purely from a theoretical point of view it could take months or years; it could take so long the NATO members rescind the invite. Obviously that won't happen; I'm just explaining why one cannot count Sweden itself as a country that has agreed to its accession.