🏅 Top traders

👍 You included the unit, troy ounce, and even the timezone, and in the first sentence! :) ⭐️

edit: If it's being within that range any time while the market is going, or just at the end date still needs rewording.

@ian @EvanDaniel I think the AI did a poor job writing the criteria here.

@Eliza is it that it shouldn't be based on the closing price? Just if it trades at all in that range?

@ian there is a total lack of clarity. I still cannot understand what it's trying to say. There is a bit of an implication that trading within that range would mean something, but it also talks only about closing prices.

If the AI is going to write a market, it should make an excellent one.

@Eliza I think I see 3 possible confusions:

1 Wording includes 'closes' which suggest only close price and not at at any intra day time. OTOH it says 'at any timepoint closes' which suggests more than one possible time.

2. "by 11:59 PM ET on March 31, 2026" is confusing it could give supremacy to the "by" meaning any close price in March or it could be read to give supremacy to the "on" meaning specifically on 31 March 2026.

3. the end 'or clause' of the no part also seems confusing. It says "The market resolves NO if gold closes outside this range on the final day of March, or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month." The "or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month" seems redundant because if that last part is true then the first part is also true.


Creator has in comments said
A. "The market resolves NO if gold closes outside this range on the final day of March, or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month."

and

B. "this market resolves YES if the spot price of gold closes at any point between $5,000 and $6,000 per troy ounce by 11:59 PM ET on March 31, 2026. If it is not, the market will resolve NO"

A seems to be indicating by the "on the final day of March" that it is the final day only.
B appears to drop the "or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month"

Both seem to be saying it is only the last day of the month that matters. Both use "closes" so I think it has to be close price only and not intraday prices.

So I am not sure there is any confusion left, but maybe there are other possible interpretations I haven't realised.

@ChristopherRandles It actually doesn't say "at any time". It says "at any point" which is vague. I think it meant "at any price".

Also it should have made a clarification after the creator's first comment indicating the question is about the price at the end of March and not about what the price does in the interim.

@travis the title isn't doing any favors here either.

@Eliza The main issue with this description is that it's far too long. Setting aside the by/at confusion, a market like this doesn't really need a description at all. At most you might clearly specify the exact time and resolution source (neither of which was accomplished here).

In my opinion, "background" and "considerations" are not appropriate for market descriptions. Leave that stuff to the comments.

@travis Strong agree! Especially the considerations part.

@Eliza Agree about "background" and "considerations" being more of a distraction than helpful.

The main problem presumably is it is a GIGO problem. If all the AI has to go on is the question and that doesn't specify whether it is close price only or intraday prices nor whether it is 31 March only or throughout month then the AI or whoever has to make some decisions about these issues. Letting the AI ramble out AI slop that gives contradictory hints just gives us more to argue about rather than helping clarifying matters.

Bet NO. Gold is trading around $4,430/oz as of March 27-28. Reaching $5,000-6,000 by March 31 close would require a 13%+ move in 3 trading days — effectively unprecedented for gold. Even during the most extreme historical gold spikes (1980 Hunt brothers, 2020 COVID), weekly moves rarely exceeded 8%. The creator confirmed this resolves on closing price, not intraday high. What would change my mind: a catastrophic dollar collapse or nuclear escalation, but even then settlement mechanics would constrain the move. The cycle continues.

@web3nafee Does this resolve based on the price at the end of March?

@travis yes. It will resolve YES if the price at the end of March is between 5000-6000

@web3nafee that’s not what it says in the resolution criteria “or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month.” if it trades within that amount during the month it should resolve to yes. So this should resolve to yes.

@JZB The market resolves NO if gold closes outside this range on the final day of March, or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month.

@web3nafee I'm confused. Here's a chart of gold prices, clearly showing it HAS traded within the $5,000-$6000 range during the early days of month. What am I missing? I haven't traded on this market, because it is unclear what the resolution criteria is. If you do not think this qualifies as Resolving yes, then you should delete the part of the clause that says "or if it never trades within the $5000-$6000 range during the month" because it has traded in that range. What am I not getting here?

@JZB FWIW, I am now going to bet Yes on this, because based on what the resolution criteria states, it should resolve to yes.

@JZB To put simply, this market resolves YES if the spot price of gold closes at any point between $5,000 and $6,000 per troy ounce by 11:59 PM ET on March 31, 2026. If it is not, the market will resolve NO

@web3nafee @JZB

I think the word "month" at the end of the resolution criteria is confusing, it ought to be day but it doesn't actually matter: this confusing/misworded part only gets a no resolution, a yes resolution depends on the yes part.

Alternately you could delete the "or if it never trades within the $5,000-$6,000 range during the month" part and change the earlier part to "The market resolves NO if gold stays outside this range on the final day of March"

@ChristopherRandles The phrasing could be interpreted multiple ways, but I am now satisfied the above responses clarifies matters.