This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States initiates a military action on Yemeni soil, airspace, or maritime territory between May 6 and May 31, 2025, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". For the purposes of this market, a "military action" will be considered to be any use of force executed by the US on Yemeni soil, airspace, or maritime territory (e.g. if a weapons depot on Yemeni soil is subject to an US missile strike, this market will resolve to "Yes") that is officially acknowledged by the US government or a consensus of credible reporting. This includes, but is not limited to, airstrikes, naval attacks, or ground invasions. Cyber attacks, sanctions, or diplomatic actions will not count towards the resolution of this market. U.S. intelligence, logistical support, or targeting assistance for another country’s attack on Yemen will not qualify. Only direct U.S. use of force on Yemeni territory counts. In the case that the "Yes" resolution criteria are met prior to this market's resolution date, this market will resolve immediately. The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
so far no 100% confirmed news has come out. this should stay open to see what will happen in the next 5 days
How do I cash in?
You can either sell for 99.9c right now or wait 1.5 hour until you can claim the full price
is there any change the result will change?
chance*
No, the result is final and can no longer be disputed
why is there money on the table here guys?
dispute window ends in 5 minutes and there is still yes's being sold for 97.5
Sometimes it’s disputed in the very last minute
People have disputed with 1 minute left on the timer before.
that would not be funny
This is a betting market, rumors are what the bets are placed on. With 5 days remaining this should not be resolved on rumors. There is no concise reporting on this, so this should remain open. That’s the whole point of a betting market. You bet on the information at hand.
There’s 13 articles detailing what happened by various verified sources
Yes and due to the lack of credible evidence these sources offer, this should most definitely not resolve yet. That’s the point in a betting market.
They offered a ton of evidence, you must be new here
By “ton of evidence” you mean 12 non credible sources citing the same 3 non credible sources? When did markets start resolving based on the claims of terrorists? Nobody is arguing if a strike happened or not. The argument is who conducted the strike. There are atleast 4 major players in the area that could have conducted the strike and we have zero proof it was the Americans.
Even the article being used as the reference for the Yes outcome says suspected. I do expect this to resolve to yes, but it’s certainly questionable.
[link removed]
If it’s a yes, then there are 5 more days to have solid confirmation.
This is probably the best dispute argument at the moment, and why it should be disputed as too early, but facts are kinda irrelevant here :)
After searching the website and Twitter account of U.S. Central Command, it seems they NEVER post statements about drone strikes targeting al-Qaeda in Yemen. They have statements about al-Qaeda in Syria, for example, but not about Yemen. The only exception I found was a drone strike in 2018 which killed key al-Qaeda leaders. It seems they have a policy not to comment on these strikes in Yemen. Maybe because it involves the CIA or something like that.
Waiting for a U.S. statement seems like an impossible standard to meet. They comment on strikes against Houthis, not against al-Qaeda.
This is a YES by the rules
How do I dispute? I click on it but nothing. Can someone dispute this?
You need 750 USD.e to dispute. It seems somewhat reasonable to dispute as all new articles are based purely on a Yemeni claim, and we know the US administration loves to brag about these things…
Why anyone would dispute this? It’s based on both US ally and Al-a sources
After the dispute window we can claim, right?
Yes
To me the consensus of the reporting should cite US military source. If not how do we know for a fact for example if it happens it's a US strike? Could be Israel or France or whoever else if it happened.
That's not how it works. We need a full proof meaning citing US sources. Why assume automatically it's them? We need US source it can come certainly during the week
No could have been France or Israel. That's plausible
Go dispute
If it’s a yes, then we should have 5 more days to confirm Yes. Because currently the evidence is still rumor weight and not confirmation weight. A betting market should stay open based on rumors
AFP is one of the biggest news agencies in the world. It should count [link removed]
the problem is, it's not sure. they just blame US in a strike we don't even know for sure it's them. usually we wait for confirmation from US military or at least source in US military. could be another country who knows?
I agree a U.S. statement would help, but absent any evidence to the contrary, I think it should be enough. Xinhua says it was a U.S. drone strike carried out in coordination with the Yemeni government, and their source is a Yemeni military official [link removed]
Every report is the same so you can see it comes from one source. I don't know but I think here we need US source especially when they always report on strike in Yemen everytime. Could have come from a partner in the region we don't know
Maybe I'm wrong but it's how I see this.
How long does it take the us government to say they did the strike?
could you link that info please?
thanks, also, when do you think the market will pay out? Will it pay on may 31 or when confirmation exists?
Though the rules don't require U S. confirmation, the reports heavily lack information and come from a very limited number of media outlets most of which are simply recycling the same article. The U.S. usually confirms its strikes through CENTCOM, and no Yemeni local media reported such an airstrike. it doesn't meet the minimum threshold to qualify as a credible reporting consensus
Not true, the most recent strikes on Al Qaeda in the Middle East were confirmed by CENTCOM. Not a single Yemeni media outlet reported the airstrike independently in RT; they are merely recycling what was circulated by Al Arabiy*
"To preserve operational security, we have intentionally limited disclosing details of our ongoing or future operations. We are very deliberate in our operational approach, but will not reveal specifics about what we've done or what we will do," the U.S. Central Command said in a statement.
That was specifically aimed at the Houthi attacks in that context, not general airstrikes in the Middle East.
One unique report ?
These reports are not credible so far. We'll have to wait for confirmation from the US. could be an Israeli strike who knows? And wait for the major outlets which can cite US sources too.
yeah but we need somthing better than just a random source with no name.
Yemeni media reports every single explosion, it's strange that none of them reported any airstrikes or sounds of explosions from these attacks yesetrday
These reports can't be used here we have to be forreal. Credible is either major news outlets from at least both countries or a government official from at least one. If not we just take non cited sources as fact which is not ok
[link removed]
here's a screenshot of the story on the terminal
well now i think it should resolved to Yes since the two sources are not Houthis so no reason it's false
yeh it's not false for sure
[link removed]
gg
Gg
gg
We basically have AFP, Xinhua, and Al Arabiya reporting this - does that not qualify as a consensus of credible reporting to resolve as a result yes
it is getting there, but plenty of time for more reporting
should I give it a day for some more reporting before submitting ?
I feel like you're setting up for a proposal
[link removed]
I actually think the Yemeni Spokesperson is a pretty solid way out