Resolution Criteria
This market resolves YES if the United States acquires sovereignty over Greenland by December 31, 2026. Acquisition would require either: (1) a formal transfer of sovereignty from Denmark to the United States through a treaty or purchase agreement ratified by the U.S. Senate or Danish Parliament, or (2) effective U.S. military control over some or all of the territory. The market resolves NO if no such transfer occurs by the deadline. Resolution will be determined by official statements from the U.S. State Department or other U.S. government agencies.
Update 2026-01-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Effective military control is defined as: The US government making an official statement that they have control over Greenland via the US Military.
Update 2026-01-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For the purpose of "effective military control," a statement from the White House (as the primary source of government actions and information) affirming that the US has control over Greenland via the US Military will be sufficient to resolve YES.
1,000People are also trading
@card4man could you say something more of what you consider effective military control for this market?
@GazDownright I assumed the last line covered it. If the US government makes a statement that they have control over Greenland via the US Military, It counts as a YES.
@card4man Would that alone be sufficient to resolve?
It reminds me of “Comical Ali” during the 2003 invasion - publicly claiming Baghdad was holding while U.S. Humvees were already visible. In other words: statements can lag reality, or be framed in a way that’s technically “true” but misleading.
Also, with existing U.S. bases in Iceland and Greenland, you could argue the U.S. already has de facto control if it choses to exercise it. If that interpretation is allowed, this market could arguably resolve YES already, which is why I think the resolution criteria need to be narrower.
At the same time, if Hegseth says “we have control,” it could just be rhetorical, meaning the status quo rather than a new, concrete change on the ground.
Suggestion: define “control” in a way that requires an observable change (legal/operational), not just a claim.
@GazDownright I'm not seeing the need to have a philosophical discussion about the legal definition of words in order to outline what may or may not technically be considered control over Greenland. If the Whitehouse makes a statement in the affirmative, being the primary source of government actions and information, it will be the deciding factor.
@card4man I just want to note (explicitly, for anyone reading/trading) that this makes the market a statement-tracking market: “YES if the U.S. government publicly states it has military control over Greenland,” regardless of whether that statement matches operational reality.