🏅 Top traders

Why has this been resolved? I don't see evidence in either direction, though it seems more likely than not. We were also promised a poll.

@Lorelai There has been no positive evidence by market close. Therefore it has resolved "No".

@Simon74fe there isn't enough evidence in either direction. You admitted yourself that you held a large position in this market (your profit: Ṁ6,714), seems extremely sus.

Resolves to YES if law enforcement officials or consensus of credible news sources identify the shooter in the Charlie Kirk attack as having connections to the Groyper movement or being a follower of Nick Fuentes by December 31, 2025.
Resolves NO otherwise (no shooter identified by market close, shooter with left-leaning politics etc.)

The rules say the market resolves "YES" if there is positive evidence by market close and "NO" otherwise

@Lorelai

There has been positive evidence, just not concrete. And a shooter has been identified, but his politics haven't been identified as left-leaning.

"The casings appeared to have symbology or messages associated with the Groypers—a movement led by Nick Fuentes that views traditional conservatism as too moderate and have a history of targeting conservative events, including some hosted by Kirk."

https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-in-the-news/isd-cited-to-explain-groyper-movement-in-forbes-coverage-of-charlie-kirk-shooting/

@Lorelai You missed this part from the article:

There is currently no definitive connection between the suspect Tyler Robinson and the Groypers or Fuentes. 

Also, this is just speculation which is much better explained by these just being internet or gaming memes.

Here is an overview over some other reporting:

Reuters (Sep 16, 2025): Reuters issued a correction explicitly removing an earlier inaccurate reference that bullet-casing “symbology” suggested the shooter was part of the Groyper movement. Reuters

CNN's fact-check (Sept 20, 2025) reported: "no evidence had publicly emerged to suggest Robinson was indeed a groyper" CNN

Axios (Sep 15, 2025): Describes the “Groyper” attribution as a “baseless theory” that spread online after the killing. Axios

The Wall Street Journal (Sep 19, 2025): Frames the post-shooting narrative environment as a flood of conspiracy theories “without any basis in fact,” including attempts to pin the killing on various factions (Israel, the MAGA movement, transgender militants, Groypers). The Wall Street Journal

The Atlantic (Sep 18, 2025): Says a Utah court filing refuted the popular theory that the suspect was a right-winger; highlights prosecutors’ material pointing to a drift leftward / motive tied to Kirk’s rhetoric rather than Groypers. The Atlantic

The New Yorker (Sep 17, 2025): Notes the engraved bullets signaled internet subculture fluency more than clear political/organizational affiliation. The New Yorker

A YES resolution requires "consensus of credible news sources" which is clearly not the case.

@Simon74fe @mods what do we think? Fyi I have basically nothing in this market, I just don't like what I consider dishonesty and gaming one's own market to benefit oneself. I personally still think it should be N/Aed or resolved by poll, as was suggested.

To me it seems pretty clear that this should resolve NO based on there not being a "consensus of credible news sources" otherwise (see the sources I listed above). This is also in line with how other markets here have resolved (e.g. https://manifold.markets/Marnix/what-was-the-political-lean-of-the).

I really did not expect his to become a controversial resolution.

@traders What do you think? If a few others traders agree this is indeed controversial we can still do a poll.

@Simon74fe incidentally I also rated that market one star and the comments call it a "horseshit resolution".

@Lorelai No one called it a "horseshit resolution".

We can do a poll if some other traders agree with you, but let's please be a bit more civil here.

@Simon74fe One user did, but later received a 3-day ban for harassment. https://manifold.markets/Marnix/what-was-the-political-lean-of-the#cghpcxl4dpn

What was the political lean of the person who shot Charlie Kirk?

Resolved hNEQU8O6nA. Resolves to my personal judgement when sufficient information is released, or based on the state of information at market close (Nov. 9). This market's resolution will be subjective, so I will not bet in this market. For reference, the first Trump assassin would have been "indiscernible," the second Trump assassin would have either been "indiscernable" or "left-wing" (probably "left-wing"), Update 2025-09-10 (PST) (Creator summary of creator comment): - Being trans, expressing support for Palestine, and hatred for an individual are not enough to signify any particular lean devoid of any other context. Each of these positions could be taken from basically all of the available options. If their political lean is too wrapped up in, say, state-sponsorship, being a spy or secret agent, some baffling edge case like that, this will probably resolve "indiscernible." Update 2025-09-14 (PST) (Creator summary of creator comment): - The messages on the bullets, on their own, are not enough to resolve this market, in my opinion. Update 2025-09-14 (PST) (Creator summary of creator comment): I'll attempt to use a scale more closely aligned with the general public than any personal scale. This linked comment has various examples of signifiers that could indicate lean, and lists various past shootings based on how they'd probably have resolved under this framework.

@Simon74fe please stop being untruthful

@Lorelai Sorry, my bad. I thought you were referring to my market

@Simon74fe I agree with resolving NO. The description makes it clear the absence of evidence toward YES makes it a NO. And when betting we knew full well there couldn't be positive evidence of the absence of a link.

@Simon74fe I think your approach here is fine, matches my expectations from the description, and is well within the normal range of interpretation allowed to market creators.

Note that I do have a small position here that I'm arguing in favor of.

@Simon74fe this is controversial??? This resolution seems wildly clear-cut, from the description. "By december 31st" means by December 31st!

@Lorelai I don't understand how someone with your epistemics can make a profit. The world just doesn't work the way you think it does, clearly.

6 Gold-standard reliable sources say there is no evidence. You haven't shown any evidence that he was a groyper, what's the problem here?!

@Lorelai Looks like a reasonable resolution to me as well

The trans markets do not contradict this. Groypers have a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" where queer desire can safely be expressed through identification with the leader and with anime personae.

https://manifold.markets/jumpman_folder/nick-fuentes-publicly-comes-out-or?r=Q2h1bWNodWx1bQ

I think groypers is likely, but unfortunately a tenet of groyper philosophy seems to be to sew confusion through random and misleading memes. So even someone who self identifies as groypers might be hard to label based on objective observation

I think Fuentes' efforts at damage control are having the streisand effect.

In case the resolution becomes controversial, I will resolve this market by poll

@Simon74fe nononononono that's a bad idea, I was about to bet but thankful I saw this. How can this be controversial? If NYT + WaPo + WSJ says yes then YES, if No then NO.

@FergusArgyll I wanted to keep the option of a community-based resolution open because I have a large position in this market myself. But a poll would only be used for genuine edge cases, like if NYT + WaPo + WSJ are split on whether a connection counts as 'linked to Groypers.' If evidence is clear either way, the market will be resolved accordingly without a poll

bumping bc i wanna see more bets