Resolves YES if the Trump administration and/or any federal court releases to the public any (previously unavailable) files satisfying the criteria below in his first 100 days in office (between January 20th & April 29th, 2025). Otherwise resolves NO.
The files must both: (1) directly describe/relate to the illegal activities of either Jeffrey Epstein or Sean "Diddy" Combs AND (2) contain the names of multiple of their associates (whose association was not trivially obvious, e.g. family).
The announce of the release does not count—the public needs to be able to access the documents (even if some friction is involved).
1,000
3.00@traders I'm going to reopen this market. To summarize the thread below, this market description implies that a file has to satisfy 3 criteria:
(1). "Previously unavailable".
(2). "Directly describe/relate to the illegal activities of either Jeffrey Epstein".
(3). "Contain the names of multiple of their associates (whose association was not trivially obvious, e.g. family)".
As best as I can tell, no file released so far satisfies all 3. The masseuse list is entirely blacked out, and it does not contain the names of multiple associates. The address book was previously leaked to Gawker, and thus was not "previously unavailable".
(Note: this diverges from Polymarket, because they did not specify "previously unreleased", but instead "previously classified, sealed, or unreleased files". The address book leaked to Gawker was previously classified/unreleased, and thus counts for Polymarket. However, it was certainly previously available, so it does not count for mine.)
I am not an expert in this case, so if you think there are any files released that satisfy these criteria, LMK and I can reevaluate. (However I feel fairly strongly that these criteria are required to satisfy the original description I wrote at the time of market creation).
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/22/politics/fbi-redacting-epstein-files/index.html
Kalshi market jumped to 49% on this news
@Shai My new limit order is a real bargain then. That's said, I am somewhat afraid I will lose this bet after a victim's name is released.
@Shai please let me know if you want me to make a large limit order for you at better odds than kalshi
@traders I'm going to reopen this market. To summarize the thread below, this market description implies that a file has to satisfy 3 criteria:
(1). "Previously unavailable".
(2). "Directly describe/relate to the illegal activities of either Jeffrey Epstein".
(3). "Contain the names of multiple of their associates (whose association was not trivially obvious, e.g. family)".
As best as I can tell, no file released so far satisfies all 3. The masseuse list is entirely blacked out, and it does not contain the names of multiple associates. The address book was previously leaked to Gawker, and thus was not "previously unavailable".
(Note: this diverges from Polymarket, because they did not specify "previously unreleased", but instead "previously classified, sealed, or unreleased files". The address book leaked to Gawker was previously classified/unreleased, and thus counts for Polymarket. However, it was certainly previously available, so it does not count for mine.)
I am not an expert in this case, so if you think there are any files released that satisfy these criteria, LMK and I can reevaluate. (However I feel fairly strongly that these criteria are required to satisfy the original description I wrote at the time of market creation).
@traders I'm not super familiar with the details here, so I'll post the key points & others can argue/correct if they think this seems wrong.
I adapted the criteria in my market from Polymarket, but the markets aren't quite the same. Here's their clarification:
Per the rules, “this market will resolve to "Yes" if the Trump Administration publicly releases any previously classified, sealed, or unreleased files”. Despite having previously been leaked by Gawker, the “Contact Book” was a sealed document, and therefore qualifies for this market. Thus this market should resolve “Yes”.
This makes sense to me. However, my criteria don't use quite the same wording. Polymarket uses a very broad "previously classified, sealed, or unreleased files". My market says "releases to the public any (previously unavailable) files satisfying the criteria below".
If Polymarket's clarification is correct, I don't think that would be sufficient to resolve my market YES. If the files had all been previously leaked, then (1) they could still be "previously classified/sealed/unreleased" (resolving Polymarket YES) but (2) they would not be "previously unavailable" (which was the terminology I used).
So my current plan would be to reopen this market, with the latest batch of files not counting for a YES resolution. However, I'll wait a bit in case I'm missing something (e.g. are there some files that WEREN'T previously leaked that also satisfy the criteria? I haven't been tracking the story super closely)
@Ziddletwix it only takes one small piece of info to be not formerly available by gawker to count then, no? There must be a random sentence or something that makes this resolve yes.
@HillaryClinton Depends on what was added? If there was a random, extraneous sentence that for some reason wasn't in the Gawker files (or e.g. a change in formatting or something similarly trivial), I do not believe that means the files themselves were "previously unreleased".
Ideally, the new info would satisfy the criteria in give in the description. I think reading the description closely, that may not be strictly necessary (i.e. if the files are new and they contain info that satisfies the criteria but the info they contain isn't new), although I'd need to think about that for a sec. But the files themselves need to be "previously unavailable". If the difference is sufficiently trivial, the underlying files are the same (e.g. if Trump released the exact same documents again, but changed the stamped date of release, or the formatting was different, or etc, I would not count those as being wholly new files). If there's a meaningful difference, then that could count (even if there's lots of overlap).
@Ziddletwix I would think any new piece of information, not matter how small would count. For example:
The Justice Department also released a blacked-out list of masseuses and an evidence list showing entries for more than 150 items, including nude images, massage tables, sex toys and other items.
To condense the description, a file has to satisfy 3 criteria:
(1). "Previously unreleased".
(2). "Directly describe/relate to the illegal activities of either Jeffrey Epstein".
(3). "Contain the names of multiple of their associates (whose association was not trivially obvious, e.g. family)".
Are there files I should look at that satisfy this? IIUC, the masseuse list is fully redacted, and the address book was previously available, so it didn't seem clear to me what should resolve this YES I can take a closer look later today, so people who feel that something qualifies should argue that case & explain why (as I'm not super familiar with the background here).
@Ziddletwix One document never before seen is what the Justice Department is calling "Evidence List," a three-page catalog of material apparently obtained through searches of Epstein's properties in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
@skibidist I think that's a tricky case. First, the file itself needs to be previously unavailable. If a file is "Epstein's address book", and that was previously leaked (so that's why we already have the names), releasing that same underlying address book in a slightly different form is the same already-released file. If the address book was new, but we had those names from some other, entirely separate source, that's the harder case. E.g. it seems like that might make their association "trivially obvious" (given that we already knew it...) but the description isn't super clear on that point ("trivially obvious" could refer to "before you know anything about the case", or "trivially obvious to us at this point). I'd have to think more about that, and it'd likely depend on the specifics
@HillaryClinton the file that is actually new, the evidence list, has no names. The file that has names is not new. Nothing released satisfies all the criteria.
@Benbones99 As far as I can tell, everything that satisfies criteria 2 has already been released. Am I missing something?
so far, everything that has been released was already public. Bondi herself claims she was "duped" and it's the fault of the FBI.