Donald Trump has expressed interest in purchasing at least part of Greenland. If the United States acquires at least part of Greenland before January 20, 2029, then the market resolves YES.
Update 2025-02-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on Acquisition Criteria:
The market will resolve YES if Greenland becomes a US territory or if the US government or one of its constituent agencies acquires any portion of Greenland.
This acquisition must involve government ownership of the land, not merely private or academic entities (for example, a science lab established by Harvard University does not qualify).
Update 2026-01-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator emphasizes that this market is about whether Greenland or a meaningful portion of it becomes part of America, not about minor acquisitions like a single building or small plot of land. The resolution will be obvious when it happens - this is about substantial territorial acquisition, not edge cases involving minimal land or property ownership.
1,000People are also trading
US to control parts of Greenland under Trump deal
Plan will designate areas as sovereign bases, allowing America to carry out military and intelligence operations
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/01/21/revealed-trumps-greenland-deal/
"Update 2026-01-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator emphasizes that this market is about whether Greenland or a meaningful portion of it becomes part of America, not about minor acquisitions like a single building or small plot of land. The resolution will be obvious when it happens - this is about substantial territorial acquisition, not edge cases involving minimal land or property ownership."
An article from the creator's sub stack that he linked in his bio, published near Trump's election win:
@Cactus He is bound to be surprised if he expected a "YES". The current details after Trump's u-turn yesterday is about the US having more military presence, which is something already possible under existing deals since 1951. The US at one time had 15,000 troops and now they have something like 150. This is hardly "51st state" material.
@Cactus "The creator emphasizes that this market is about whether Greenland or a meaningful portion of it becomes part of America, not about minor acquisitions like a single building or small plot of land"
Since we seem mostly to be arguing about the creators interpretation of his own resolution criteria. The clarification you pasted is an AI edit of the description. The actual text says
"There are lots of questions about various edge cases. They are all irrelevant. This is a question of whether Greenland will become part of America. We will all know when that happens. It will be obvious. Use simple logic. This is not about whether the US will own a building in Greenland. It is about whether Greenland or some meaningful portion of it becomes part of America. When Trump says he wants to acquire Greenland, he isn’t talking about wanting a square mile of it. Don’t get yourself bogged down - the resolution of this question will be obvious!"
Even putting aside the fact that the creator is one of the largest owners of YES, I still interpret this as being at least in part an expression of opinion that edge cases are unlikely, not purely an expression that he will resolve one way or another in ambiguous circumstances. Would also like to paste an article from the creators sub stack which he linked in his bio as context about his views on politics in general, which may serve as some small guidance into his resolution criteria:
https://leebressler.substack.com/p/its-a-good-day-to-be-an-american
@Cactus “The AI change is invalid” makes little sense if the change has been there for 11 days, but in general, the comment says the same thing. If after 11 days he said, “Nah, it was just my opinion that had nothing to do with the market, where coincidentally I have a large holding, let's say it would be a problem.
@Emanuele1000 not saying it's invalid. Just that it needs to be viewed in the broader context of his whole statement and other opinions he holds.
@Joshua if it resolves based on the creator's latest clarification, there is no reasonable interpretation where the latest news is sufficient for YES. the direct quote:
This is a question of whether Greenland will become part of America. We will all know when that happens...This is not about whether the US will own a building in Greenland. It is about whether Greenland or some meaningful portion of it becomes part of America.
When Trump says he wants to acquire Greenland, he isn’t talking about wanting a square mile of it.
like, i don't think it's even interestingly ambiguous. here's the quote from the NYT article:
Denmark would give the United States sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic land where the United States could build military bases
the USA has military bases in many countries. it would be dumb to say those countries have "become part of america" (it is closer to "getting a square mile of it", i.e., the creator's canonical example for what doesn't count). if the eventual deal is similar to what's being currently reported, it isn't remotely close to being enough for YES given the creator's clarification.
will the creator stick to that clarification? no idea. IMO they should, that's what clarifications are for, but that's the edge case here—do you stick to the literal thing you wrote to explain market resolution, or do you fall back on a general interpretation of the original market title (it is not irrelevant that the creator is a large YES holder).
@Ziddletwix also the original market title was "Will Trump buy Greenland?" so resolving YES would be a major drift from the original meaning of the market.
I disagree. The full text of his comment says
"There are lots of questions about various edge cases. They are all irrelevant. This is a question of whether Greenland will become part of America. We will all know when that happens. It will be obvious. Use simple logic. This is not about whether the US will own a building in Greenland. It is about whether Greenland or some meaningful portion of it becomes part of America. When Trump says he wants to acquire Greenland, he isn’t talking about wanting a square mile of it. Don’t get yourself bogged down - the resolution of this question will be obvious!"
Even putting aside the fact that the creator is one of the largest owners of YES, I still interpret this as being at least in part an expression of opinion that edge cases are unlikely, not purely an expression that he will resolve one way or another in ambiguous circumstances. Would also like to paste an article from the creators sub stack which he linked in his bio as context about his views on politics in general, which may serve as some small guidance into his resolution criteria:
https://leebressler.substack.com/p/its-a-good-day-to-be-an-american
@Cactus I have seen the full text and I don't think it changes anything. I can't read the substack because I don't have access. Not that I want to read it, because it doesn't seem relevant
@ItsMe I also don't have access. But I believe the title and first sentence weakly supports my claim that the authors comment was primarily an expression of opinion that Trump will unambiguously bring some significant part of Greenland under US ownership. Not necessarily that he would resolve one way or another if there's an awkward middle amount of territory taken under ownership by the US.
If anything his comment should make you want to buy more YES
@Cactus I think it's clear that the clarification is saying that only a significant acquisition would count.
I still interpret this as being at least in part an expression of opinion that edge cases are unlikely, not purely an expression that he will resolve one way or another in ambiguous circumstances.
it is possible that is what the creator meant. but it is not what they wrote. if you are asked by many commenters to clarify the resolution criteria of your market, and you say "this is a question about whether greenland will become part of america... this is not about whether the US will own a building in greenland. it is about whether greenland or some meaningful portion of it becomes part of america.", you are clarifying resolution criteria, not making a prediction that "the US will NOT own just a building in greenland", nor making a prediction that "a meaningful portion WILL become part of america". those may in fact be their predictions! but when responding to requests to clarify market resolution, stating "this question is not about X" should be understood as a market clarification, not a prediction.
again, i don't know how they will rule—it is entirely possible they will disregard their clarification and rule that this counts as YES. but this would clearly be them overturning their clarification. (which might be fine—sometimes people feel the title & an earlier comment clarification are at odds, and while personally i would stick with the clarification in most cases, this is not a universal rule. i'm speaking as someone watching the market not a mod)
@Ziddletwix I think it would be egregiously unfair to overturn a clarification which has stood for 10 days on a market with 1000 traders. And it would, in fact, be more in line with the title to keep the clarification. Especially since the title was, until recently, "Will Trump buy Greenland?". I agree with the rest of your comment.