You should read the AI updates or the comments before participating
Update 2025-09-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Either 2026 or 2028 can satisfy YES (not both required).
Early resolution plan after 2026:
If there are no attempts/pressure in 2026 citing the event, creator plans to early‑resolve NO.
If it clearly occurs in 2026 (e.g., multiple states with soldiers/state pressure at polling booths), creator plans to early‑resolve YES.
If there's only an ambiguous 2026 attempt citing the event (e.g., heightened police presence but not military), will keep open and wait to see if 2028 shows a clearer military/state presence; 2028 need not explicitly cite the event if it's a continuation.
Update 2025-09-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For a YES, both must occur:
Reference: Trump or Vance publicly link the event to new polling-place security measures in either 2026 or 2028.
Security presence: After that reference, added polling-site security in either 2026 or 2028 involving armed forces not normally present. Local/random police do not count; some federal police may count at the creator’s discretion.
The two steps may happen in different years (e.g., reference in 2026, forces in 2028).
If neither happens in 2026 and there’s no indication for 2028, will early-resolve NO.
If by end of 2028 only one of the above has happened, will resolve NO.
1,000People are also trading
@digory Trump or Vance need to reference this event in relation to new polling safety measures in at least one of 2026 or 2028, and then following that, in either 2026 or 2028 there needs to be the security changes with some kind of armed forces that would not usually be present (e.g. random police don’t count, but I guess it’s possible that other federal police could)
If neither happen in 2026, with no indication that it’ll happen in 2028, resolves NO early
If only one has happened by 2028, resolves NO
I’m picturing top down messaging ubiquitous in media with this included (likely alongside mentions of other events) as the reason for the action. If there is an attempt to increase election security it will undoubtedly be met with scrutiny and if they mention this as a defence it will qualify
Something like, “we need to protect our people, we all remember the tragic attack …” .. “we can’t let it happen again” .. or similar
I sincerely apologise for how vibesy it is, I have an idea in my mind but if I need to try and elaborate more lmk and I will
@Panfilo trying to put my thoughts out there, apologies if it’s a bit disorganised
I guess it’s either, but with the caveat that if there is no pressure or attempts to pressure people in 2026 I would rather early-resolve NO than wait another 2 years — same if it clearly occurs in 2026 (i.e. multiple states with soldiers/state pressure at voting booths)
So basically, if it is attempted in some form in 2026 (citing this event in any related way) then I’ll wait to see if 2028 has a continued, more clear effort (not necessarily in reference this event)
I can scrap this idea if it makes more sense to just say either, but I think it might be relatively ambiguous e.g. heightened police presence, not military in 2026- then I’d wait to see if there was a military presence or something in 2028
@Gen So if it's clear yes or no in 2026, it resolves then, but if it's ambiguous/partial in 2026, then you wait for 2028 to see if it breaks in a clear direction?
@Panfilo yeah, that’s basically what I was thinking when I went with that title. I’d just make it one or the other, but then I don’t know if troop pressure at midterms is likely, and I don’t know if they’ll still be using current events as a “pretense” come 2028, so it kinda needs time to play out in two parts
It really is kinda vibesy so maybe I should dump my shares
@Gen I think troops at polls is a big area for markets but I agree this is a pretty specific and time-limited vector.