Inspired by this Tweet: https://twitter.com/alexandr_wang/status/1711200724959555709?s=46&t=4pLJvqxfCXYK4ZR-Zv1ehw
where Alexandr Wang gave 10% chance of escalation to WW3.
Resolves YES if we find ourselves in a conflict broadly labeled as "WW3" by media outlets in the US before 2025, and if it's broadly clear that the situation in Israel was a significant nexus of the escalation to world war.
To clarify the degree of causal connection that would be required, I'll roughly state that a YES resolution requires that Israel's military action be at least as causally central to the escalation as the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand was to the escalation to WWI.
If WW3 does not occur in this way by 1/1/2025, I'll roll a die and resolve N/A unless it lands 1, in which case I'll resolve NO. (AKA, if you believe in Alexandr's 10%, you should buy the market to 40%, for example.)
1,000
3.00@traders Now that N/A resolutions have been removed, what would be a fair approach to resolving this market?
@CarstenStolz Adds granularity to the market—for low probability events it’s often not worthwhile to trade to correct probabilities by a small absolute amount. Weighting improves the expected profit from relative corrections (Edit: conditional on no N/A), encouraging more trading and a better estimate.