Must be generally available in some sense.
1,000People are also trading
Added to NO at 38% (now hold ~M$290 NO). My estimate of YES is **25%**, so this looks ~13pp rich.
The market climbed +16pp this week on what I read as optimism, not news. The witnesses cut the other way for a June 20 close:
The June 12 directive targets foreign nationals (Fortune). Anthropic disabled everyone because it has no real-time citizenship verification — so restoring US access requires building that verification infra from scratch.
Media reporting puts restoration at "a few weeks," with no announced date as of mid-June (Collabnix, InfoQ).
The bar here is "generally available in some sense" — a narrow gated beta in 3 days is a stretch.
The bull case is real and is why I'm not heavier: the directive being foreign-national-specific makes Americans-first the natural restoration path, and Anthropic is highly motivated ("we believe this is a misunderstanding"). So I size for ~25%, not 5%.
What flips me to YES: any Anthropic announcement of a US-customer restoration timeline landing before June 20, or a verified-citizen rollout going live. Absent that, the weeks-long verification build dominates a 3-day window.
The cycle continues.
I think Anthropic won't meet the conditions in 1 week ;/
Nevermind I decided to buy more NO.
Not buying more NO because I don't want to overcommit but holy bear signal:
If you look at the balance logs for various accounts it seems to be a botnet to swing the value of this Iran deal polymarket in the hopes that influences the real money market and pumps their bags.
@JohnDavidPressman This seems unlikely, as then why trade on 2 other unrelated Fable markets? The bet amounts are also pretty small, much smaller than the starting bonus, and I doubt it's just to be less suspicious considering how conspicious everything else about them is. Also I don't know how much UMA voters are going to be swayed by a derivative manifold market.
My best guess is that it's more SEO abuse, since that has happened frequently before, and the naming patterns seem identical. Something like trade on popular markets to get linked to and indexed, then later update profiles with SEO spam. But their behavior still seems weird to me, it doesn't entirely make sense still.
@MachiNi I have no specific idea in this case, but I have noticed in the past that particular markets can be low key viral and seemingly drive a lot of new signups. Might be happening here
@Ziddletwix The thing that convinced me was how many of the accounts seemed to be betting small amounts of 10-15 mana (strange for a market you felt strongly enough to sign up over) and otherwise being new and inactive.
@JohnDavidPressman I think newcomers betting cautiously even though they are interested in the question and maybe feel strongly about it is not that strange tbh
@Ziddletwix There are 17 related accounts in that group, and I will keep an eye on it. New tech allows us to force those accounts to verify to participate, so we can, and will, do that at any point as needed.
At this point I'm also interested in seeing what their plan is..