This market resolves YES if:
An armistice, ceasefire, or negotiated settlement is announced by both Ukraine and Russia regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine at any point between the Associated Press calling the election for Donald Trump, and April 19, 2025, 11:59 PM ET.
To count toward the resolution of this market, an armistice, ceasefire, and/or negotiated settlement must be indicative of at least the temporary end of the Ukraine-Russia military conflict, must pertain to all theaters of military conflict between the two countries, and be declared through official channels by both countries. The specific date that such an agreement will take effect is not relevant to the resolution of this market. The only requirement is that the agreement must be announced within this market's specified timeframe.
To count toward the resolution of this market, an armistice, ceasefire, and/or negotiated settlement must be indicative of at least the temporary end of the Ukraine-Russia military conflict, must pertain to all theaters of military conflict between the two countries, and be declared through official channels by both countries.
See also Polymarket's market.
See also:
Update 2025-07-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Comprehensive Ceasefire: A ceasefire that means 'nobody can fight at all for the next week' would count as a temporary end to the conflict.
Localized Ceasefire: A ceasefire that means 'no fighting in this little area but everywhere else is fine' would not count.
@Blomfilter I understand that Russia is now on-board but the general news coming out recently has been Ukraine has been only somewhat involved. How are they gonna sign a deal without Ukraine agreeing to it?
@Bayesian Russia comes to an agreement with US, acknowledged by Russia, acknowledged by US, fighting ends in Ukraine, but no statement from Ukraine. How are you resolving? Start working on defining some of these edge cases now.
@ChadCotty I know, but I've been to this rodeo before. Start thinking of some scenarios and get clarity.
@Predictor The main ambiguity I can imagine would be if both announce they intend to agree to a full ceasefire prior to the deadline, the agreement is actually signed after the deadline and goes into effect however many days after it was signed. The effective date is still immaterial, but which date was the agreement reached?
@ChadCotty Announcing an agreement is required. Announcing an expectation of future agreement is not sufficient. I dont think the agreement needs to be signed necessarily? That last sentence is not a market resolution clarification more a question about how these things work bc I donโt know whatโs typical. Do people hear โagreementโ and think that must necessarily be a signed agreement? Iโd guess no but idk
@Bayesian My 2 cents is that the parties announcing "an agreement which 'merely' needs to be signed" is more like an agreement in principle - the negotiators may still be trying to finalize the details, and that's not easy, as the devil is in the details.
Once the details are truly finalized in written language which all parties agree to, actually putting ink on paper takes just a few hours (or a few minutes if Trump and Putin and Zelensky are already in the room). I would wait a few hours to avoid mis-resolving the question.
My opinion is therefore that an announcement is not enough. There has to be signatures on paper. Which will, for such a major event, be witnessed by plenty of TV cameras.
@Bayesian While on this topic, you might consider clarifying exactly which event needs to occur within the 90-day limit. What if an "announcement" as above occurs before April 20, 2pm EDT (90*24 hours after Jan 20, 1pm EST), but TV cameras only capture Putin and Zelensky signing after?
My favoured cutoff would be photo or video evidence of Ukrainian and Russian delegates signing the agreement must be released before April 20, 3pm EDT, which already includes a 1-hour grace period in case any party imposes a reporting delay on media for security purposes. (Announcements, or depositing the treaty with the UN, are immaterial to this criterion).
A lot of the public in the US (and some officials) seem to have wrong impressions about Europe not doing much. Ofc it would be a hit, but Europe can also scale up more and it wouldnโt be terribly different for Ukraine. The US is not โabsolutely neededโ.
@ScipioFabius Of course, yes, the super rare "rare earth minerals." Are those in the room with you right now?
please everyone focus on predicting and sharing information and staying on the object-level. I'd like that ppl don't feel the need to mute this market because it gets low level engagement
