If Things Happening causes mildly popular markets to resolve, then clearly we were Monitoring the Situation with respect to those things.
Things Happening will include anything CRAZY:
/ItsMe/will-something-crazy-happen-monthly (does not need to be the event that resolves that month's market, just needs to count under the same definition)
Or anything Unanticipated that Happened, by this definition:
/EvanDaniel/will-nothing-unanticipated-happen-b-AnqQZ9SqtE
If it causes a market with at least 30 traders (counted prior to the event) to resolve, then it was adequately Monitored.
If all such events for the year were Monitored, this will resolve Yes; No otherwise.
Deadline may be extended if needed for events near the end of the year.
I will not bet in this market.
Update 2026-01-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Markets that count as "Monitoring" must be:
Topical and normal-ish
Ranked
Not meta, self-referential, circular, or paradox-inducing
Parlay markets are acceptable if they're about specific markets that would otherwise qualify
Duplicate markets created by others do not affect how this market resolves.
1,000People are also trading
@EvanDaniel Isn't this something we can do every day from the comfort of our own multi-monitor setups?
If something crazy happens that causes the other crazy market to resolve, does that count as making a market resolve?
What if I make a market (that has 30 traders) that is a copy of this market and a crazy, unmonitored event happens, but I resolve my market first. Would that prevent this from resolving?
@robert I don't really know how to formalize this, but... No wacky meta markets, self referential or circular stuff, or paradox inducing stuff. If someone creates a duplicate of this market, that doesn't change how this one behaves.
The market that counts as Monitoring things needs to be topical, normal (ish), ranked. Parlay markets are fine, as long as they're about specific markets that would otherwise be fine.
If it causes a market with at least 30 traders (counted prior to the event) to resolve, then it was adequately Monitored.
Im wondering how specific these markets need to be related to the event. Eg. If there was a market, Will Charlie Kirk debate Bernie Sanders, with 35 traders, and it resolved no afterwards as its no longer possible, Am I right in thinking that wasn’t relevant enough? Even though the event caused it to resolve.
@Jack1 The issue with this market is that there's no way to tie a market on Manifold to the resolution of the craziness market, and many markets are related to the event that caused it to resolve, but not exactly the same, so this market's resolution becomes subjective.
@realDonaldTrump Evan isn’t trading, so I trust him to be fair. If I get confirmation of how relevant it needs to be I’d be confident betting more on the market in future
@Jack1 "How relevant" is really hard, so I'm just going to keep trying to give examples and hope I don't back myself into something too horribly inconsistent. The discussion re: Charlie Kirk on the November market still all applies; I'd like to keep the same relevancy standards across this whole series.
It should be a little more directly relevant than a stock price, in general. (Unless the Event is like "Enron collapse".) And you should be able to claim your "I told you so" points if you had a big bet you wanted to point at. Very roughly speaking. So I think the "no debate" bet counts (but is a little marginal), and the "Maduro leaves Venezuela" market counts (if large enough). But I'm not fully decided on the debate example and would be happy to hear arguments about it.
And things like death markets... "will someone die and be in the news" "oh look Kirk died"... doesn't really count. Specificity is hard, here. "Will a CEO be assassinated" is a lot more specific and useful, though.
And yes, it's subjective. If you have ways to make it less so, that's great! We're going to end up on some shade of partial subjectivity, it can't be fully objective (or even as objective as many markets manage) but we can still aim for improvements!
@realDonaldTrump If you disagree, please tell me why and what you think we missed. Suggestions to clarify my criteria are absolutely welcome!
@EvanDaniel I do disagree, because the /ItsMe/will-something-crazy-happen-monthly resolved not to the pure military conflict (which happened in December '25) but to the actual capture of Maduro, where there was no popular market.
@realDonaldTrump I thought the search term it resolved to was just "Venezuela". And the Wikipedia article is titled "2026_United_States_strikes_in_Venezuela" which sounds a lot like "military conflict" to me.
The creator said the capture was the resolution. You should modify the criteria to have the phrase entered under "Resolutions" to be semantically similar to the market title you want to resolve for, as judged by the top model for text on LMArena
@realDonaldTrump As best I can tell "Capture of Nicolas Maduro" is neither the Google Trends term in question nor the Wikipedia article in question. And it's the same event as the military conflict and strikes.
@EvanDaniel yeah obviously nobody's searching "capture of nicolas maduro" it's more like "maduro" or "maduro captured" or "trump capture" or "venezuela guy captured"
@realDonaldTrump Please try to maintain a higher standard of discourse on my markets; less guessing, more citations, more analysis. It would take you ten seconds to check a proposed term. Please do that.