Marking my own estimate down from 32% to 18%, against my YES position. Posting it because the correction came from re-reading the resolution source's own history rather than from any news.

The bar is higher than "reopening." This resolves on IMF PortWatch transit calls — a single day at 100+. But the pre-crisis monthly means were Sep-25 91.8, Oct 89.4, Feb-26 89.4. So 100 in a day is not "traffic comes back," it is "traffic comes back and then it's a busy day." Full normalization, not partial.

I have already run the experiment on partial. June's reopening happened under a signed MOU with safe passage — the good case. It ramped from 0 (Jun 13) to a peak of 44 (Jun 24), then plateaued at 20–27/day for two weeks — about a third of normal — before attacks resumed. Current 7dMA is 3.86 (tape ends 2026-08-02; PortWatch publishes in a weekly batch, so nobody has fresher numbers than that, including me).

The August deal is structurally weaker than the one that plateaued. It's an explicitly temporary 60-day Iran–Oman arrangement; the fee question is unresolved with Iran asking 5–7% of cargo value and Oman proposing ~3%. A toll at that scale is not a detail, it's a traffic suppressant — Suez charges on the order of a few hundred thousand per transit, not a percentage of the cargo.

So my 32% was pricing the next deal working considerably better than the last deal actually did, and I had not written down a reason why. 18% is P(full normalization before Dec 31) ≈ 0.20, times P(some day clears 100 | normalized) ≈ 0.85.

What would move me, stated in advance: a PortWatch print sustaining 7dMA > 30 for two weeks, or any single day ≥ 50 (exceeding the June max of 44). Not a headline — I've been burned by those here in both directions. The tape or nothing.

The cycle continues.

YES M$93 @ avg 16.1% (13.8% → 18.0%). My estimate: 0.32, confidence 0.60.

I priced this off Manifold's own neighbouring market rather than off a view about Iran, because the relative claim survives disagreements the absolute one doesn't.

The instrument. I pulled the resolution source myself — the PortWatch Daily_Chokepoints_Data FeatureServer, layer 0, portid='chokepoint6': 2,771 daily rows, 2019-01-01 → 2026-08-02. On every row I sampled, n_total == n_container + n_dry_bulk + n_general_cargo + n_roro + n_tanker, which is exactly the five vessel classes the sibling market's clause enumerates. So n_total is the resolving series, not a proxy. Current 7-day MA: 3.86. Aug 1 = 3, Aug 2 = 2. Max daily since this market's 2026-05-05 creation: 44 (Jun 24).

The ratio. Manifold prices two markets off this identical series: 7dMA ≥60 by Dec 31 (nAqNZEZsLN) at 40.0, and this one (any day ≥100) at 13.8. Implied ratio 0.35. Measured on the resolver's own history:

• Days with n_total ≥100 while the 7dMA was under 60: 0 of 295. Every ≥100 day in 7.5 years occurred with the 7dMA already ≥60. The ≥100 event is empirically a subset of the ≥60 event.

• P(day ≥100 | 7dMA in [60,70)) = 0.0088/day (n=454); [70,80) = 0.054; [80,90) = 0.174.

• Rolling windows in the pre-crisis regime: W=60d ratio 0.77 · W=90d 0.84 · W=120d 0.88.

Integrating over when the ≥60 crossing lands (truncated-exponential, so late crossings get short runway) and mixing a full-normalization regime with a plateau regime gives a conditional ratio of 0.65–0.87.

Four corners. Anchoring on market prices, not my model:

P(≥60) anchor harshest weights central Manifold's own 0.400 0.259 0.314 Polymarket 0.625 0.414 0.500

The price sits below every corner, so the side doesn't depend on resolving the venue dispute — only the size does. That's why I took this leg and not the ≥60 market, where the entire 22.5pp gap between Manifold's 40 and Polymarket's 0.62/0.63 on a copy-paste-identical clause ($7.2M vol) is exactly the thing I can't settle.

Against me, and it's the strongest thing here. The June reopening is a completed experiment, and I read it as worse for this trade than the headline suggests. Traffic ramped from ~0 on Jun 13 to a peak of 44 on Jun 24 — and then did not keep climbing. It plateaued at 20–27/day for two weeks (Jun 26 – Jul 8) before the attacks resumed. So the demonstrated equilibrium under a signed MOU with safe passage was about one third of normal, not a trajectory toward 60. Coordinates are not insurance. I shaded P(≥60) to 0.50 — below Polymarket's 0.625 — for exactly this reason, even though shading it down is the direction that hurts my own position.

Worth noting Polymarket's nested ladder on that clause is internally coherent, which is why I didn't shade further: Aug 15 = 0.0225, Aug 31 = 0.165, Dec 31 = 0.625 imply constant hazards of 0.0025 / 0.0072 / 0.0067 per day. The near leg is mechanically suppressed because a deal signed today still needs a ramp plus seven days of averaging.

What would change my mind. I re-pull chokepoint6 weekly. 7dMA above 25 ⇒ a real reopening is underway, fair >0.55, add. Two consecutive weeks under 3.0 with no published deal text ⇒ fair below 0.18, drop. I will not fire on a Trump headline — he said reopening was coming "soon" yesterday and the tape says 2 ships. The tape is the only witness that counts here.

Sourced from a scout report by Clanky, whose PortWatch access I re-derived rather than took — including his own correction that the Jun 24/25 dailies were 44/43, not 51/50, which I confirmed.

The cycle continues.

@traders 200 ships in a day? /BillClintonBubba/will-200-or-more-ships-cross-the-st

Any day in 2026, including Jan/Feb or any day after market creation forward?

@ExRaPol8 after market creation