[nabla9]

US did not invade Venezuela by the definition of the bet.

>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

>For the purposes of this market, land de facto controlled by Venezuela or the United States as of September 6, 2025, 12:00 PM ET, will be considered the sovereign territory of that country.

>The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.

[strangattractor]

Sounds to me like they intend to control the oil production infrastructure which is land/territory within Venezuela - but what do I know.

Isn't the entire Polymarket concept rife with ways to abuse the system? If I have insider knowledge I get shills to create a market for that knowledge - then make an extreme bet at the last moment. Seems sort of like betting the 49ers will not win the Super Bowl because you know that Purdy's kneecaps are about to be busted. Or large options trades the day before the Senate votes on Healthcare bills.

[stubish]

If you want a gambling site, you need to ban insider knowledge. If you want to generate accurate predictions, you want to encourage insider knowledge. But even then, the problem you mention can occur when an insider extreme bet happens at the last minute, because although you end up with an accurate prediction it isn't very useful in the few minutes before it becomes a fact. I don't know if there is a solution.

[wiml]

I think it hinges on whether "any part of Venezuela" includes intangible "parts" like being able to tell them who to sell oil to, or whether it only refers to land/territory. The second paragraph implies that control over land is the point of the bet, but it doesn't explicitly say so. Control over the oil industry doesn't require control over land.

[cyanydeez]

Naive view is it's suppose to create public interest measures with real valued results.

Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to see something, eventually, like "X won't be seen in public after December 31st, 2026" essentially creating an assassination market.

Basically, boil finance bros down to sociopathy.

[dragonwriter]

> This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026,

There are two conditions:

(1) A military offensive: obviously satisfied, and

(2) That military offensive being intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela: The President explicitly stated that the intended outcome was that US would run the country, and that, if it was necessary to use additional military force beyond the original act to secure that because of the lack of cooperation of the remnants of the regime left in Venezuela, that additional force would be applied. So, that part is also satisfied.

Any denial that the conditions were satisfied is pure sophistry.

[ajross]

POTUS literally, literally announced that the US had control over all (!) of Venezuela.

Now, sure, that's kind of a lie. But (ahem) By The Definition of The Bet, actual control is not required. Only a military offensive intended to establish control. What purer definition of intent can you have than the decisionmaker's literal statement? QED.

No, this is cheating. Now, sure, the bets placed seemed very likely to be fraudulent. Which is cheating too. But there's not "technically" here. Polymarket is playing games with its bets. And that's fraud, even if it's got company.

[lxgr]

Polymarket is not a broker, counterparty, or even resolver, so the only thing they can arguably be criticized for is hosting a market without a sufficiently clear definition of "invasion".

[jcranmer]

The current POTUS is not a credible source.

[zahlman]

It's not as if the site can steal money this way. Either something else happens before the 31st that does meet their definition, or else they have to pay out the "no" side.

[Bombthecat]

Is the potus a credible source, ( as per definition of the bet)

[nabla9]

That's not what it says.

[SllX]

There is nothing both public and credible to substantiate the claim by the POTUS.

It’s possible we have de facto control of the regime through some backroom that only the Trump Administration knows about, but that’s just speculative on my part. We don’t know this is actually the case, and thus far there hasn’t been anything to substantiate the existence of such a thing.

So we’re at at a point where if put on the spot, gun to my head, I had to answer whether the United States controls the Government of Venezuela in any meaningful way, I would have to say “No” despite what Trump himself said. This is subject to change, pending further evidence made available to the American people.

[watwut]

Why is this downvoted? The argument is solid.

USA did not achieved control, but its leadership apparently think they have it.

[thatcat]

This is the whole thing about polymarket, whoever writes the original bet can lawyer it to create a misleading impression of probabilities by defining an overly narrow or vague victory condition that they will interpret to their benefit to make more money.

[lxgr]

The conditions are public and (as far as I know) immutable, though. Getting language lawyered is part of the risk of taking such bets, which is why it's probably a bad idea for most laypeople to do it, except if they're hedging some other investment or something similar.

[morshu9001]

The creator of the event doesn't resolve it, I thought

[NewJazz]

Yeah I think one could easily argue that the special military operation in Venezuela was intended to gain control over the country. Trump literally stated that his team, in particular lil Marco, would be running the country. Of course Rubio walked that back a little, explaining that we only have "leverage" (via Maduro's trial/pardoning), but that still is within the terms of the bet.

[idiotsecant]

I think this is called 'being specific'

[BostonFern]

Contra proferentem or caveat aleator? That is the question.

[JumpCrisscross]

The U.S. absolutely “commence[d] a military offensive” against Venezuela. The question said if it “intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela.”

The condition is based on intent, not outcome. (It’s a poorly-drafted contract.)

[DannyBee]

This is wrong.

It was a helicopter evac. I guarantee you 100% at some point they intended to, and did control, the roof of a building or an area of land for some length of time in order to perform the helicopter evac. I bet they even said so, over the radio. I bet if it's not classified (unclear), you could get the operators to testify to this.

Even if it had been a boat evac they would do the same for the boat landing/evac area.

There is a 0% chance the planned military operation did not involve deliberately controlling some area, for some length of time, inside venezuela, for exfil.

The terms do not require they establish permanent control, or control for any significant length of time. Just that they intend to control, and did control, some area.

[machomaster]

1. "Establish". Stabilize the control, not temporarily visit. Similar to flying a bit in the airspace does not count as establishing a control.

2. "Establish an area" also means that the area would be big enough and control significant/independent enough in order to maintain (!) it. E.g. imagine if most of the Delta were eliminated and only one guy survived, holding a maid hostage in the toilet. That would not count because the area is small, the control is insignificant and keeping the toilet space was not the original point anyway. Similar as attacking Brazilian servers would not count only because the traffic went through Venezuela's network.

[croes]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/business/energy-environme...

Sounds pretty much like it

[testing22321]

>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

“We will run the country, yes” - Trump

[atoav]

Wait, how do you exfiltrate a head of state without establishing some level of control for even the briefest of periods?