This market resolves based on whether the U.S. government formally implements the threatened tariffs on the "Greenland Eight" (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Finland) by the February 1 deadline.
Resolves NO if: At any point on or before 11:59 PM ET on February 1, 2026, the U.S. government begins the actual implementation or collection of any new, additional, or "stacked" tariffs (at any percentage) specifically targeting the named European countries in connection with the Greenland dispute.
Resolves YES if: The deadline of 11:59 PM ET on February 1, 2026, passes without the aforementioned tariffs being implemented. This includes scenarios where the tariffs are formally canceled, delayed, or if the administration simply takes no action to codify the social media threats into law.
Resolution Rules:
"Concept vs. Reality": Trump's January 21st "concept of a deal" tweet does not resolve this market. Resolution depends on the status of the tariffs on the deadline date.
Implementation Definition: Implementation is defined as the issuance of a Presidential Proclamation, an Executive Order, or official CBP (Customs and Border Protection) guidance directing the collection of these duties.
Source: Resolution will be verified by the Federal Register or reports from at least two major financial outlets (Bloomberg, Reuters, WSJ, CNBC).
Update 2026-01-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For a NO resolution, tariffs do not need to target all eight countries. Implementation of new tariffs on some of the "Greenland Eight" countries (in connection with the Greenland dispute) is sufficient for the market to resolve NO.
Update 2026-01-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Aircraft tariffs on Canada do not trigger a NO resolution. The tariffs must specifically target the "Greenland Eight" nations (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Finland) and be implemented in connection with the Greenland dispute.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ75 | |
| 2 | Ṁ29 | |
| 3 | Ṁ20 | |
| 4 | Ṁ13 | |
| 5 | Ṁ6 |
People are also trading
If the criteria are unclear, feel free to tag me and I'll try to clarify it quickly. I'm also open to placing limit orders since the liquidity is low.
@Velaris Would the new/increased tariffs need to target all of the "Greenland Eight" countries, for a NO? Or would it be enough for NO that some of them get an increase (so long as it's related to the Greenland situation)?
@Velaris Hi, thanks for the clarification. A potential edge case has arisen. Trump is saying he might impose tariffs on Canadian aircraft. That is clearly not at all "in connection with the Greenland dispute" - it's about a different matter entirely. If the US were to formally implement such a tariff before the end of January, would that be a NO for this market? Or is the aircraft tariff too narrow, and so unrelated to Greenland, that the market would still resolve YES (unless something else happens)? I think the overall situation is clearly that yes, TACO has happened on the Greenland tariffs, but I'd like to check.
@SacredChicken The aircraft tariffs on Canada do not trigger a NO resolution. The criteria specifically require the tariffs to be targeting the 'Greenland Eight' nations and implemented in connection with the Greenland dispute.