Market: Trump-Putin meeting again by…

Trade: December 31 - No

Current Odds: 48%

Potential Return: 108%

Resolved by: End of 2025

Position Size: Medium

Welcome back to The Poly. Today we are looking at a market that has popped up with regard to another Trump meeting with Putin in 2025. We think the pricing is wrong on this one and believe it deserves a serious look.

Why Trump is Unlikely to Meet Putin Again in 2025

Polymarket traders currently give a 54% chance that Donald Trump will meet Vladimir Putin again before the end of 2025. But history, geopolitics, and incentives suggest those odds are far too high. In reality, the barriers to a near-term summit are significant, making “No” the smarter side of this bet. At 48¢, we think the “No” contract offers the best value for a number of reasons.

1. Past Frequency of Putin Meetings

Trump’s first term in office offers a useful baseline. Despite four years of constant speculation about his relationship with Putin, formal, in-person meetings were rare:

• July 2018 (Helsinki Summit) — the only full bilateral summit.

• July 2017 (Hamburg G20) — brief meeting on the sidelines.

• November 2017 (APEC Vietnam) — informal interaction.

• Other years — little more than fleeting encounters at multilateral events.

In short, a handful of meetings in four years.

Crucially, since Russia invaded Ukraine, meetings between Putin and Western leaders have become even more scarce. While Putin had several meetings with Western leaders in the run up to the invasion, his meetings since then have largely been with more authoritarian leaders such as China’s Xi Jinping, Belarus’ Alexander Lukashenko and Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan. In fact, by our reckoning, the recent summit in Alaska provides the first meeting with a Western leader since the 2022 invasion.

Generally speaking, meetings of this type take a lot of preparation and back and forth. If history is any guide, the idea of a second meeting between Trump and Putin being squeezed in before 2026 seems like a tall order. We think the probability is much closer to 25-30% than the 54% being offered.

2. Putin’s Incentives: No Real Interest in Peace

Markets may also be misreading Russia’s signalling and Putin’s interest in actually ending the war. Just today, the Financial Times reported that Putin has floated the idea of “security guarantees” involving Russia, the U.S., China, the UK, and France — but this is more diplomatic theater than genuine negotiation and it’s an indication that Russia has no intention of peace. If security guarantees need to be approved by Russia, then they are essentially meaningless. This is clearly something that Ukraine and Europe will have no interest in.

• Veto power demand: Russia insists on terms that effectively give Moscow a veto over Western defense commitments to Ukraine. This is a non-starter for Kyiv and Washington alike.

• Strategic benefit of war: Putin benefits from keeping the conflict alive — it destabilizes NATO, drains Western resources, and cements his domestic grip on power. A real peace deal would weaken his narrative at home.

• Bluffing tactic: Floating the possibility of talks helps Russia look reasonable while shifting blame onto the West when nothing materializes.

In this context, Putin has little incentive to rush into a meeting with Trump that would force him to show flexibility. The idea that Putin is in a hurry to step up negotiations and bring an end to the war seems more like one of Trump’s fantasies. Putin, in our view, is more likely to do what he can to delay the peace process and it is easy to imagine those delays stretching on for weeks and months. Certainly, the more delays we see, the more opportuntiy there will be to exit this market with a profitable trade.

Market Mispricing

Right now, the Polymarket curve shows:

• August 31: 3%

• September 30: 20%

• October 31: 38%

• December 31: 54%

We like the look of both the October 31-No and December 31-No markets here. (There is also a market on a meeting between Zelensky and Putin that looks interesting).

Conclusion

Based on history, Trump-Putin meetings occur less than once per year, and usually after a long buildup. Moreover, since the war, meetings with Western leaders have been non-existent. When you couple this with Putin’s likely incentives, the odds of a second 2025 summit seem much lower than 54%. Hence the 48¢ market for “No” offers asymmetric value. As is often the case, the market appears to be overpricing headlines and underpricing historical precedent and geopolitical incentives.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: US-Iran nuclear deal in 2025?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 51%

Return: 96%

Resolved by: End of 2025 (could be shorter if negotiations collapse)

Position Size: Medium

Hey everyone! Welcome back to The Poly. I know it's been quiet around here since our last trade. Honestly, there just haven't been many compelling opportunities worth jumping on. The markets have been pretty efficient lately, which is both good and bad news for us. We do our best work when geopolitics gets messy and creates pricing gaps, but things have been relatively calm since that India-Pakistan situation we covered earlier.

That said, something interesting has finally caught my attention: the US-Iran nuclear deal. There's some real potential here, so let's dive in.

Why a US-Iran Nuclear Deal Probably Won't Happen This Year

The US and Iran have been dancing around a new nuclear agreement for years now, and frankly, it's not going well. Ever since Trump pulled out of the original Iran nuclear deal back in 2018, both countries have been trying to figure out how to get back to the negotiating table, but they keep running into the same brick walls. The latest round of talks in Rome this month were pretty much a bust. Iranian officials are already downplaying expectations, which tells you everything you need to know about where things stand.

Both sides have drawn lines in the sand that the other simply won't cross. Add in domestic politics on both sides, plus all the regional complications in the Middle East, and you've got a recipe for continued stalemate. Let's break down why 2025 is looking like another year of diplomatic wheel-spinning rather than breakthrough moments.

What Went Wrong: From Nuclear Deal to Nuclear Standoff

Back in 2015, the world managed to pull off something pretty remarkable. The Iran nuclear deal (officially called the JCPOA) was genuinely tough on Iran's nuclear program. Iran agreed to get rid of 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile, cap enrichment at levels way below weapons-grade, and basically gut two-thirds of their centrifuge capacity.

The deal also flipped some key facilities from potential weapons sites into research centers, and gave international inspectors much better access to keep tabs on everything. The bottom line was that Iran went from being maybe a few months away from having enough material for a bomb to needing over a year. That was a huge win for nonproliferation.

Fast-forward to May 2018, and the Trump administration decided the deal wasn't good enough. The Trump admin argued that it didn't cover Iran's missile program or their support for proxy groups across the Middle East. So they walked away, slapped sanctions back on, and even labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Iran's response was predictable: they started breaking their commitments too. Uranium enrichment crept up, hitting 60% by 2023, and they began blocking some international inspections. Now, in 2025, we're seeing traces of uranium enriched to near-weapons levels (90%), which has everyone seriously worried about how close Iran might be to actually building a bomb.

Why Nobody Can Agree on Anything

The Biden team started out wanting to just get back to the old 2015 deal, but the US have gotten a lot tougher since then. Now they're pushing for Iran to give up uranium enrichment entirely and forever. That's a big departure from the original agreement, which would have let Iran resume some enrichment after 10-15 years. This hardline approach isn't happening in a vacuum. Republicans in Congress are breathing down the administration's neck, and just this month they sent a letter basically telling Trump not to accept any deal that lets Iran enrich uranium at all. The US also wants way more intrusive inspections and limits on Iran's missile program.

Iran sees this completely differently. Their foreign minister put it bluntly in May: "zero enrichment means no deal." From their perspective, enrichment is a basic right under international law, and they're willing to keep it low-level for civilian use, but they say a total ban is not happening. They're also demanding that the US lift all sanctions, not just the nuclear-related ones, but everything, including the terrorist designation for their Revolutionary Guard. And here's the kicker: Iran wants to see actual sanctions relief before they start rolling back their nuclear program, while the US wants Iran to make the first move. It's a classic chicken-and-egg problem that's been killing talks since 2021.

Why This Keeps Falling Apart

The biggest problem here is that both sides think the other is fundamentally untrustworthy. Iran looks at Trump pulling out of a deal they were actually following and thinks, "Why should we believe anything America promises?" Meanwhile, US officials see Iran steadily ramping up its nuclear program since 2018 and think, "These guys are obviously not serious about peaceful nuclear energy." Making things worse, international inspectors have had less access to Iranian facilities since 2023, so we're basically negotiating in the dark about what Iran is actually doing. Hard to build trust when you can't even verify what's happening.

Nuclear deals with Iran have become a political football in Washington. Biden came in wanting to restore the original agreement, but Republican pushback and electoral losses forced him to take a much harder line. Now Trump's back in office and trying to cut a deal, but his own party is fighting him on it. Over 200 Republican lawmakers are basically demanding Iran dismantle its entire nuclear program, which is a non-starter that leaves Trump with almost no room to negotiate. The political reality is brutal: any compromise with Iran could cost Trump support from his base, so the incentives all point toward taking the toughest possible stance.

Iran has its own political mess to deal with. The country's Supreme Leader and hardliners see their nuclear program as essential for survival, both against external threats and for maintaining regional influence. The moderates who might be willing to make deals got burned badly when Trump pulled out of the 2015 agreement, and they've lost a lot of credibility. The Revolutionary Guard, which is now officially designated as a terrorist organization, has major political clout and opposes any deal that might weaken their regional proxy networks. With Iranian presidential elections coming up, nobody in Tehran wants to look weak by making concessions to America.

The Neighborhood Isn't Helping

The regional picture has gotten messy since 2015. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who absolutely hated the original Iran nuclear deal, are now quietly telling the US they'd rather see diplomacy than another war. That's sort of progress?

But then there's Gaza. The ongoing conflict has put a spotlight on Iran's backing of Hamas and Hezbollah, making it politically toxic for the US to be seen cutting deals with Tehran. The Gulf states might want stability, but they're also crystal clear that any nuclear agreement needs to come with serious limits on Iran's support for militant groups across the region. That's a tall order when Iran sees these proxy relationships as core to their strategic influence.

The EU has been trying to broker talks between the US and Iran since 2021, with diplomat Enrique Mora shuttling between capitals like some kind of nuclear deal Uber driver. But after four years of this, European officials are openly admitting they're exhausted by the whole process.

Iran won't talk directly to the US, which means everything has to go through intermediaries, slowing down what's already a painfully slow process. Mora's latest trip to Tehran in May was basically a fact-finding mission — Iranian officials made it clear they weren't ready for anything serious. When even your mediators are running out of patience, that's not a great sign for getting a breakthrough.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

Every major obstacle that killed previous negotiations is still there, and some have gotten worse. The US and Iran are further apart on their core demands than they were in 2021. Trust between the two sides has completely broken down. Both countries are dealing with domestic political pressures that make compromise nearly impossible. Add in the regional chaos from Gaza, European diplomatic fatigue, and the fact that Iran is now closer to weapons-grade uranium than ever before, and you've got a situation where everyone knows a deal would be better than the alternative, but nobody can figure out how to actually get there.

The smart money says we're headed for more of the same in 2025: periodic diplomatic theater, incremental escalation, and a lot of people in Washington and Tehran secretly hoping the other side blinks first.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Subscribe now

Market: What continent will next Pope be from?

Trade: Europe

Current Odds: 66%

Return: 52%

Resolved by: Potentially May 7th (Cardinals may deliberate for longer)

Position Size: Full

Welcome back to a new trade idea on The Poly. This week we hit a big milestone: reaching a 100% return in our first three months! Here is an overview of all our trades since we started this newsletter back in February:

We look forward to continuing to bring results as great as these and to keep on building up our account to become one of the major traders on Polymarket. With that being said, let’s get into today’s trade idea.

The 2025 Papal Conclave

The upcoming papal conclave, set to begin after Pope Francis's passing on April 21st, has sparked worldwide interest about where the next pope might come from. Francis certainly made the College of Cardinals more globally diverse during his time, but several key factors still point to Europe as the most likely source of his successor.

Looking at the numbers, European cardinals maintain significant representation among those who'll vote. Then there's the Vatican's bureaucracy, which is deeply rooted in centuries of tradition and resistant to rapid change. European theological perspectives also continue to shape Church thinking in profound ways. Perhaps most importantly, papal elections involve complex negotiations and alliances that tend to favor candidates with connections to Rome and European church power centers. So while the Church has become more global in many ways, the road to the papacy still runs through Europe – at least for now.

The College of Cardinals: A European Tilt

Despite Pope Francis's push for a more global Church, European cardinals still hold the largest voting bloc. They account for 40% of voters (53 out of 135), while Asia has 17%, North America 14.8%, South America 12.6%, and Africa 13.3%. This European advantage doesn't reflect where Catholics actually live - Europe houses just 20.4% of the world's Catholics, compared to South America's 27.4% and Africa's 20%. Still, with 89 votes needed to elect a pope, European cardinals have considerable sway in the final decision.

Europeans also run many of the Vatican's key administrative offices. Take Italy's Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State under Francis, he is seen as a leading candidate thanks to his insider knowledge and diplomatic skills. France's Cardinal Dominique Mamberti holds the important Senior Cardinal Deacon position. These roles give European church leaders unmatched understanding of how the Vatican actually works, making them practical choices for cardinals who value steady leadership and institutional knowledge.

Europe's Deep Papal Roots

Throughout Catholic history, Europe's grip on the papacy has been nearly absolute. Of 266 popes, only a handful weren't European, with Francis from Argentina being the first non-european pope in over 1,300 years. While Francis's 2013 election broke this pattern, it didn't eliminate the built-in advantages European cardinals enjoy. When voting, cardinals tend to favor candidates who can effectively manage the Vatican's intricate political environment, which is a skill often credited to Europeans with their proximity to Rome.

European cardinals typically align better with the doctrinal conservatism that remains influential in the Vatican, despite Francis's more progressive approach. Take Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who previously led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - he's become a notable critic of Francis's more welcoming stance toward LGBTQ+ and divorced Catholics. Such figures appeal to cardinals concerned about preserving traditional doctrine, especially those representing more conservative Catholic communities.

Inside the Conclave's Power Dynamics

The need for a two-thirds majority makes forming alliances essential. While non-European cardinals actually hold 60% of the votes, they're spread across different regions with diverse priorities. African cardinals often champion issues like poverty reduction and protecting religious minorities, while Asian cardinals frequently emphasize dialogue between faiths. European cardinals, however, share more cultural and theological common ground, making it easier for them to unite behind one candidate. Though Francis appointed 80% of the voting cardinals, the remaining 20% - selected by Benedict XVI and John Paul II - still wield considerable influence. These cardinals, mostly European, tend to favor candidates who prioritize traditional doctrine and centralized Church authority. Their votes could be decisive, particularly if the more progressive Francis appointees split their support among several candidates.

European Frontrunners: Three Cardinals to Watch

Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Italy)

As Francis's Secretary of State, Parolin has managed Vatican diplomacy through major global challenges, from the Ukraine war to climate negotiations. He walks a middle path, supporting Francis's focus on social justice while maintaining traditional doctrine, making him appealing to both progressive and conservative wings. His weakness? Some criticize his handling of abuse cases as lacking transparency, a serious concern as the Church faces demands for greater accountability.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (Austria)

The scholarly Archbishop of Vienna advocates giving more power to national bishops' conferences rather than centralizing everything in Rome. His support for allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion puts him in Francis's camp, though his strong theological background also appeals to traditionalists. While his conciliatory approach is valued, his age (80) might give some cardinals pause.

Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer (Spain)

Leading the Vatican's doctrinal office, Ladaria has skillfully balanced strict doctrine with pastoral care. He helped craft Amoris Laetitia, Francis's document on family life that sparked both praise and controversy, earning respect from reformers and conservatives alike. As a Spaniard, he might attract Latin American cardinals looking for a European who understands the global Church.

Europe's Edge Remains

The upcoming 2025 conclave certainly showcases Catholicism's increasingly global nature. Yet Europe's built-in advantages, with more voting cardinals, control of key Vatican positions, and centuries of tradition, make another European pope the most likely outcome. Could a non-European be elected? Absolutely. But it would require a level of coordination and shared vision among cardinals from different regions that hasn't materialized yet. As cardinals gather in the Sistine Chapel on May 7th, the familiar forces of tradition, practical politics, and regional influence will probably produce a pope who continues Europe's long-standing grip on the Church's highest office.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Subscribe now

Market: India military action against Pakistan before June?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 37%

Return: 170%

Resolved by: End of May (5 weeks)

Position Size: Medium

Welcome back to a fresh trade idea on The Poly. Lately, we've been focusing on safer bets with higher win rates, though still enjoying solid returns averaging around 40%. Why the conservative approach? Simply put, the truly lucrative opportunities have been scarce.

I believe this drought of high-return trades stems from Polymarket recycling familiar geopolitical scenarios with extended deadlines. Take our Ukraine war trades, for instance; a conflict now stretching into its third year. When situations evolve this gradually, the market eventually achieves a more accurate consensus, narrowing the edge for traders. But this week brings something different: the developing India/Pakistan situation. As a fresh conflict just emerging, this presents a classic inefficient market where outcomes are likely being mispriced, exactly the kind of opportunity we look for.

South Asia remains a powder keg, especially between nuclear rivals India and Pakistan. The devastating Kashmir attack on April 22 has everyone wondering if we're headed for a military showdown. But looking deeper at the situation, I don't see India launching strikes on Pakistani territory between now and May 31.

Why am I skeptical? Five key reasons: First, both sides understand the nuclear nightmare that could unfold. Second, India's coalition government isn't stable enough for such a risky move. Third, the brutal seasonal weather makes military operations a logistical nightmare right now. Fourth, India's leadership is laser-focused on economic growth, not military adventures. Finally, behind-the-scenes diplomatic pressure is intense, with key international players working to prevent escalation. When you connect these dots, the picture becomes clearer. Despite the heated rhetoric, direct military action remains unlikely in this timeframe.

Nuclear Dynamics and Deterrence

Pakistan makes no secret about its nuclear policy. They will strike first if they feel threatened. Their four-step escalation plan starts with warnings, moves to demonstration tests, then tactical nukes against invaders on Pakistani soil, and ultimately strategic strikes against military targets inside India. This aggressive stance compensates for their conventional military disadvantage, a vulnerability they've been acutely aware of since losing East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971.

India takes the opposite approach with its "No First Use" policy from 2003. They won't launch first, but promise massive retaliation if hit with nuclear weapons. While there's ongoing debate about adjusting this policy for biological or chemical attacks, the core principle remains unchanged. Importantly, India requires civilian leadership approval for any nuclear response. It is a deliberate speed bump that favors cooling tensions rather than escalation.

This nuclear standoff creates a dangerous equilibrium. If India sends conventional forces into Pakistan, they risk triggering Pakistan's tactical nukes, which would invite India's much larger strategic response. This mutual vulnerability has kept both sides from crossing certain lines, as we saw during Kargil in 1999 and after the 2016 surgical strikes. The recent Pahalgam attack, while tragic, simply doesn't reach the threshold where India would risk triggering this nuclear cascade, especially with Pakistan's explicit warnings ringing in their ears.

India's Internal Political Reality

The 2024 election dramatically changed Modi's position. His BJP party lost its majority, forcing him to rely on regional partners like JDU and TDP who care far more about economic development and local issues than nationalist saber-rattling. This significantly limits his freedom to launch risky military operations. The BJP's surprising defeats in Uttar Pradesh, even after Modi's high-profile Ram Temple inauguration, show voters have grown tired of divisive rhetoric that doesn't deliver economic results.

India's defense and security institutions naturally lean toward measured responses when dealing with Pakistan. Even the 2019 Balakot airstrikes, conducted when Modi had a strong majority, faced internal criticism for their questionable effectiveness and escalation risks. Now, with a coalition government watching his every move, the military and security leadership would be even more reluctant to support unproven military adventures, especially knowing how quickly they could trigger Pakistan's nuclear threshold.

Environmental and Battlefield Realities

The scorching heat wave hitting North India in April is a serious military constraint. With temperatures soaring above 45°C in Rajasthan, Punjab, and Haryana (the staging grounds for any potential operation), the conditions are brutal for both troops and equipment. Extended exposure to this extreme heat reduces soldier effectiveness, degrades equipment reliability, and strains supply lines, making sustained military campaigns increasingly impractical.

India's suspension of the Indus Water Treaty as a pressure tactic against Pakistan also comes with significant risks. While it does threaten water security in Pakistani Punjab and Sindh, this hydrological warfare could easily backfire. Indian farmers in Haryana and Rajasthan, who are already struggling with crop failures from the extreme heat, will face additional water shortages. This agricultural interdependence creates a practical constraint on aggressive actions, as water weaponization would harm Indian interests almost as much as Pakistani ones.

Economic Priorities and Trade Disruptions

While India's economy maintains impressive 6-7% annual growth, it's facing real challenges from global protectionism and inflation. The coalition government has staked everything on job creation, infrastructure development, and welfare programs to maintain popular support. A military conflict would drain resources, spook markets, and send foreign investors running. These are all outcomes that Modi's coalition partners, especially the business-friendly TDP, would strongly oppose.

The immediate response to the Pahalgam attack, which included suspending bilateral trade, closing airspace, and expelling diplomats, is already hurting supply chains in Punjab and Sindh, with textile and agricultural sectors taking the biggest hit. Escalating to actual military strikes would further cut both countries off from lucrative Central Asian trade routes and vital Gulf investments, causing long-term economic damage that would far outlast any short-term political gains.

Global Realities Shape India's Options

Despite Modi's flurry of calls to world leaders after the Pahalgam attack, the international community has shown little interest in getting involved. With Ukraine and Taiwan consuming global attention, South Asia already seems like yesterday's crisis. President Trump has made his hands-off approach crystal clear, bluntly stating "they'll figure it out, one way or the other." Without explicit UN Security Council support or meaningful international pressure on Pakistan, India risks diplomatic isolation if it takes unilateral military action.

India has carefully crafted its international image as a "responsible" nuclear power and champion of the Global South. Military strikes would undermine years of diplomatic positioning, potentially damaging crucial partnerships with both Quad countries (US, Japan, Australia) and BRICS nations. Breaking the Indus Water Treaty would raise serious questions about India's reliability in future climate and trade negotiations.

When you connect all these factors, from nuclear deterrence, to Modi's weakened political position, severe environmental constraints, pressing economic priorities, and limited international support, the picture becomes clear. Despite the emotional pressure following the Pahalgam attack, India is unlikely to launch military strikes on Pakistani territory before May 31st. The risks simply outweigh the potential rewards, especially for a coalition government facing multiple domestic challenges. While strong rhetoric will continue, the reality is that both nations understand the catastrophic costs of escalation beyond certain thresholds.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Subscribe now

Market: Trump exits Russia x Ukraine negotiations before June?

Trade: Not

Current Odds: 67%

Return: 49%

Resolved by: End of May (6 weeks)

Position Size: Full

Hey all and welcome back to a new trade idea on The Pol. I’m happy to see some of our readers have been following our account on Polymarket, but for those who haven’t been, I’m happy to share that we are up a massive +35% since we launched the account a little over one month ago! Today’s trade has an upside of 49% with a 6 week resolution timeline. Let’s get into it.

Why Trump Can't Walk Away from Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks

There has been a lot of drama in recent weeks regarding Russia and Ukraine negotiations, from the London talks falling apart, to the Twitter spats between Trump and Zelenskyy, and the endless speculation. However, I'm not buying the idea that Trump is about to wash his hands of Ukraine.

Look beneath the surface noise, and the reality is more complicated. While Trump's frustration is genuine (and loudly broadcast), several forces are keeping his administration at the negotiating table whether he likes it or not. The geopolitical stakes are simply too high to abandon diplomacy, even as both sides dig in their heels. Economic pressures, particularly in Europe, demand some form of resolution. And politically, Trump needs a win here, not another foreign policy headache.

I've been watching the shifting dynamics of this conflict closely, and here's why I believe Trump won't be stepping away from peace efforts anytime soon, despite all the saber-rattling and tough talk we've been hearing.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

How Saudi and Qatar Deals Keep Trump at the Table

Let's talk about what's really driving Trump's Ukraine strategy—it's not just about Eastern Europe, it's about his grand vision for the Middle East. Two massive deals hang in the balance: a defense partnership with Saudi Arabia and Qatar's ambitious gas pipeline through Syria to European markets. The Saudi agreement we're talking about is a massive $600 billion in American investments over just four years. But it needs a stable world to work. A messy, protracted war in Ukraine throws a wrench in everything, disrupting energy markets and keeping European allies distracted when Trump needs their buy-in. Meanwhile, the Qatar project represents Trump's chess move to wean Europe off Russian gas. But that pipeline goes nowhere as long as Ukraine burns and energy infrastructure remains under threat.

These deals are deeply intertwined, creating a powerful motivation for Trump to keep pushing for peace. Walking away doesn't just mean giving up on Ukraine—it means watching two cornerstone achievements of his second term crumble before they've even solidified. For all his tough talk, Trump knows these Middle Eastern partnerships are too valuable to sacrifice on the altar of Ukraine frustration.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Using Diplomacy to Box In Putin

Russia's been playing hardball at the negotiating table by shrugging off real ceasefire talks while pushing for limited pauses that conveniently shield their energy assets. But there's a method to Trump's madness in keeping these seemingly frustrating talks alive. The administration sees these ongoing conversations as a leash on Putin's territorial hunger. By keeping Russia engaged in diplomatic back-and-forth, they're working to prevent the next land grab beyond what Russia already controls in the Donbas and annexed territories. Look at Russia's recent demands: Ukrainian disarmament, permanent NATO exclusion, and political reshuffling that would essentially turn Ukraine into a puppet state. These aren't good-faith negotiating positions, they're a blueprint for domination.

Trump's own envoys haven't helped by amplifying these demands in press conferences, giving Russian wishlist items an unfortunate veneer of legitimacy. But here's the strategic calculation: as long as America stays at the table, Russia can't simply take whatever it wants. Any deal, even one that might be tough for Ukraine to swallow, would force at least some concessions from Moscow, putting guardrails on Putin's ambitions rather than giving him free rein across Eastern Europe. Sometimes just showing up is half the battle.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Why Walking Away Could Backfire Spectacularly

The temptation to wash his hands of Ukraine must be strong for Trump. But the potential fallout? It's not pretty. If the U.S. steps back, expect Russia to ramp up its brutality. Remember that missile strike in Sumy last month? 35 civilians dead in an instant. Now imagine those horrific scenes multiplied across Ukraine, playing on every news channel and flooding social media. So much for Trump's claim that he "stopped the killing". Critics would have a field day comparing it to the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal.

Beyond the immediate humanitarian disaster, there's the ripple effect. Beijing is watching closely, measuring the Trump admin’s commitment before making any moves on Taiwan. US allies throughout Asia would question whether American security guarantees mean anything anymore.

Trump might insist this war is "not our problem," but reality doesn't care about slogans. With Britain and France deeply invested in peace efforts, America walking out could shatter Western unity at the worst possible moment. This fracturing is exactly what Putin wants, an opening to test NATO's resolve in the Baltics and see if Article 5 truly means what it says.

The bottom line is that even Trump's most skeptical advisors understand that completely abandoning these talks risks something far worse than a stalemate in Ukraine. It risks a direct NATO-Russia confrontation that nobody, not even Trump, can afford to trigger.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Subscribe now

Market: Trump imposes tariff on pharmaceuticals before May?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 80%

Return: 25%

Resolved by: End of April (2 weeks)

Position Size: Full

Hey all and welcome back to the Poly. In case you missed it, we launched our Polymarket account three weeks ago, and have returned 15% on the whole account - solely based on the trades and position sizes we talk about on this newsletter. This puts us on track for a 535% yearly gain. If you would like to follow our progress check out the account here.

Today’s trade is based on the Trump administration's latest moves on trade that have sparked fresh debates about possible tariffs on pharmaceuticals. Pharma is a sector that matters deeply for both public health and the economy, which meant it was somewhat of a relief when pharmaceutical products weren't included when the administration unveiled wide-ranging tariffs on imports from more than 180 countries on April 2nd. Later, on April 15, the administration launched a national security investigation into drug imports under Section 232. This sequence of events highlights just how complicated and delicate any decisions about this industry really are.

Procedural Hurdles and the Section 232 Investigation Timeline

On April 15, the Commerce Department kicked off a Section 232 investigation into pharmaceutical imports, positioning foreign drug production as a national security issue. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 requires these investigations to follow a specific timeline: the Commerce Secretary gets 270 days to deliver findings to the President, who then has 90 days to take action.

While Trump's team has moved quickly on similar investigations before (like with steel and aluminum), this pharmaceutical probe is particularly complex. It covers a wide range of products; everything from brand-name and generic drugs to active ingredients and manufacturing equipment, which makes a fast resolution much harder. The investigation's public comment period runs for 21 days, which pushes the process into mid-May at minimum. Even if the administration tries to rush things, the legal groundwork needed to justify tariffs on national security grounds makes any April implementation practically impossible.

Historical examples make April action even less likely. When the Trump administration imposed Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018, those came a full 14 months after investigations started. Meanwhile, the auto sector investigation that began in May 2018 still hasn't been resolved, even now in April 2025. With the pharmaceutical investigation only starting on April 15, there's simply not enough time for officials to gather data, talk with industry stakeholders, and create a legally sound justification before the end of the month.

Political Sensitivity of Targeting Healthcare Costs

The U.S. healthcare system is already struggling with sky-high drug prices, which became a major talking point in congressional hearings and throughout the 2024 presidential race. Putting tariffs on pharmaceuticals would directly clash with the Trump administration's promises to lower costs for Americans.

As Melissa Barber from Yale University points out, brand-name drugs are already "priced at the maximum the market can sustain," leaving manufacturers little choice but to pass any new costs directly to consumers. Generic drugs make up 90% of U.S. prescriptions, but their razor-thin profit margins (just 3-5% on average) mean that tariff-related price increases would be unavoidable.

Robin Feldman of UC San Francisco cautions that even small cost increases could limit access to essential medications, potentially triggering significant political backlash.

Pharmaceutical industry groups like PhRMA and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization are pushing back hard against the tariffs, warning they could disrupt supply chains and hamper innovation. A recent BIO survey revealed that 90% of U.S. biotech companies depend on imported components, and half of them expect regulatory delays and R&D reductions if tariffs move forward. This resistance adds to the political challenges facing an administration already under fire for healthcare costs.

Strategic Timing and the April 2 Tariff Exclusion

The administration's choice to leave pharmaceuticals out of both the April 2 baseline 10% tariffs and the April 9 reciprocal tariffs aimed at "worst offenders" signals a careful approach. This stands in stark contrast to semiconductors, which got hit with immediate tariffs despite also being under Section 232 investigations. The difference highlights pharmaceuticals' unique position: unlike when electronics are in short supply, drug shortages can literally mean life or death, making the political risks of a misstep much higher.

President Trump's April 9th announcement of a 90-day tariff pause for most countries shows he prefers negotiation over sudden action. This breathing room lets his administration seek concessions from key generic drug suppliers like Ireland and India without causing immediate price increases. By holding off on pharmaceutical tariffs, Trump keeps valuable bargaining chips for future trade deals while avoiding short-term disruptions to healthcare.

Economic Realities of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

The Trump administration's push to bring drug manufacturing back to America faces huge short-term challenges. As Lilly CEO Dave Ricks pointed out, moving production from places like Ireland and India would take "years and billions of dollars." The complicated regulatory approvals needed for manufacturing facilities, plus the specialized workforce and infrastructure required, make quick reshoring impossible. Any tariffs imposed in April would just punish imports without actually boosting U.S. production, defeating their supposed purpose.

The pharmaceutical industry's global supply chains make tariff implementation even more complicated. A full 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients used in U.S. drugs come from overseas, mainly from China and India. Disrupting these networks with tariffs would send shockwaves through the entire healthcare system, affecting everything from antibiotics to cancer treatments. Novartis recently announced a $23 billion investment plan for the U.S. just days before the Section 232 investigation was launched – a clear attempt to head off tariffs – but even these initiatives will take five years to fully develop.

The combination of procedural delays, political risks, economic challenges, and strategic timing makes pharmaceutical tariffs in April 2025 extremely unlikely. By focusing on sectors that can be reshored more quickly, like semiconductors, and have lower public sensitivity, the administration is clearly trying to avoid healthcare-related backlash. Looking ahead, expect drawn-out negotiations and gradual policy changes rather than sudden tariff announcements. That said, the Section 232 investigation does set the stage for possible future actions, especially if the administration can secure concessions from other countries or develop better domestic production incentives. For now, the delicate balance between trade policy goals and healthcare realities is keeping pharmaceuticals safe from immediate tariff shocks.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: Will Trump increase sanctions on Russia before June?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 46%

Return: 118%

Resolved by: End of May (2 months)

Position Size: Medium

Hey all and welcome back to the Poly. Last week was a tough week to find value on Polymarket; lots of volatility and new markets being resolved within hours or days as Trump’s tariffs took the world by storm. The tariff situation seems to be calming down, and value-trade opportunities are slowly coming out of the woodwork. Today we’re looking at the Russian sanctions market.

The opening months of 2025 have seen President Trump's administration take a distinctive turn in handling Russia's ongoing Ukraine conflict. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has placed diplomatic solutions at the forefront, even as he publicly threatens Moscow with severe economic consequences. Just last month, he warned of "devastating" banking restrictions and tariffs, yet his actual policy moves tell a different story - one where negotiation takes precedence over economic pressure. This shift in America's sanctions approach has become a defining feature of the current geopolitical moment, as the White House pursues what it believes could be an endgame to the long-running war.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Negotiation Over Coercion

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has approached the Ukraine conflict with his trademark dealmaker's eye rather than through traditional diplomatic channels. He doesn't see Russia's actions as a moral crisis demanding punishment - to him, it's simply a "bad deal" that needs better terms. This was crystal clear during his March showdown with Moscow, where his warnings of "very unpleasant" sanctions came alongside a straightforward offer: a 30-day ceasefire on the table, right now. "Russia has no way out but cease-fire. If needed we will sanction it, but I hope we won't need to," he stated plainly. The message isn't subtle - in Trump's playbook, economic threats are just bargaining chips to get everyone to the negotiating table, not the main strategy.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Trump's Black Sea ceasefire pitch in March revealed his playbook in action. While publicly framed as requiring Russia to make concessions, behind the scenes it was a different story. Kremlin officials made it clear they were only at the table because of promised sanctions relief for banks handling agricultural exports. Ukraine quickly denied agreeing to such terms, but Trump's team seemed open to the idea - with the Wall Street Journal reporting that American negotiators considered easing sanctions crucial to getting Russia's cooperation. This approach isn't unique to Ukraine - we saw it back in January when Trump lifted sanctions on Israeli settlers in the West Bank even as Gaza violence continued. It's becoming his signature move: dangling sanctions relief as the carrot to get what he wants at the negotiating table.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Ineffectiveness of Existing Sanctions

Trump's reluctance to pile on more sanctions stems from a simple observation: Russia has weathered the economic storm remarkably well. Despite being hit with over 20,000 sanctions from the U.S. and its allies since 2022, Russia's economy grew by 3.6% last year. They've adapted by ramping up military production, sending energy exports east to Asian markets, and assembling a shadow fleet of tankers that sidestep G7 price caps. Trump didn't mince words about this on March 7, saying bluntly, "Russia's still standing, still fighting—sanctions didn't stop them before, why waste time now?" In his view, why double down on a strategy that clearly hasn't delivered the knockout punch many expected?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Biden's parting shot in January hit 250 Russian energy and financial entities, including Chinese companies helping Moscow dodge restrictions. But Trump's people argue we've reached the ceiling of what sanctions can accomplish. As Atlantic Council's Kimberly Donovan put it, "Further secondary sanctions risk alienating neutral states without materially altering Russia's war capacity." Russia has simply adapted too well - they've built their own payment system called SPFS and ramped up crypto usage to work around conventional banking channels. The economic squeeze play that looked so promising in 2022 has lost much of its punch as Russia found ways to live with the pressure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The “America First” Mandate

Trump rode back to the White House partly on Americans' growing weariness with foreign entanglements and pocketbook concerns. His core supporters largely see Ukraine support as money down the drain - a February Pew poll found 68% of Republicans against sending more funds. By presenting sanctions relief as a way to save cash while speeding up peace talks, Trump neatly ties his Russia approach to what his voters want. He summed it up plainly on March 7: "Why pour more money into sanctions paperwork when we can get a deal done?" It's a message that resonates with supporters who'd rather see resources directed toward problems at home.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Trump's running against the clock with the EU's next sanctions review coming up in June. The timing creates both pressure and opportunity - experts think he'll use this deadline to squeeze concessions from Moscow and Brussels simultaneously. The play? Possibly offering to hold off on new penalties if Russia commits to a ceasefire, while also getting the EU to sign off on limited sanctions relief. It's classic Trump wheeling and dealing, but without rock-solid enforcement behind it, there's real concern this approach could just hand Putin more leverage. The question becomes whether Trump can transform this time crunch into the breakthrough he's been promising voters.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Subscribe now

Market: which company has the best AI model end of April?

Trade: Google

Current Odds: 65%

Return: 54%

Resolved by: End of April (1 month)

Position Size: Full

Hey all and welcome back to The Poly! The last 7 days have been wild, both in the stock market and on Polymarket. There has been a lot of panic and a lot of volatility, meaning it has been quite hard to find a trade idea that hasn’t had big price swings within a short amount of time. Nonetheless, I bring you a solid idea today, unrelated to the obscene volatility in a lot of markets at the moment.

Google’s Current Benchmark Leadership

Google has just pulled ahead in the AI race, with their latest Gemini 2.5 Pro model taking a commanding lead on the LMArena leaderboard. They're not just edging out competitors like Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and DeepSeek – they're dominating them. DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis didn't hold back his enthusiasm, pointing out that Gemini is ahead by "a whopping +39 ELO points." Admittedly, the gap has now closed to 22 ELO points with the release of Meta’s Llama 4 model. Nonetheless, it's a substantial gap that gives Google some breathing room. At this rate, it's hard to see any competitor catching up before May rolls around.

Released just last month, Gemini 2.5 Pro isn't just good at one thing – it's showing impressive results across understanding, math, coding, and other key metrics. This suggests Google has likely made a fundamental breakthrough in how their AI works. For competitors to catch up, they'll need to improve on multiple fronts simultaneously – no small task in today's rapidly evolving AI landscape.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Technological Advantages of Gemini 2.5

What really sets Gemini 2.5 apart are innovations that competitors won't easily match overnight. The model's enhanced reasoning abilities let it tackle problems step-by-step, making smarter decisions along the way. This methodical approach gives it a serious edge when handling complex tasks that need logical thinking and understanding context. Gemini isn't just good at one thing—it's naturally fluent across multiple formats. While some competitors cobble together separate systems for different types of content, Google built Gemini to seamlessly work with text, audio, images, video, and code all at once. This integrated design isn't just elegant; it's practical, helping the model excel in real-world applications and across diverse benchmark tests.

Perhaps most impressive is how Google built thinking capabilities directly into Gemini's foundation, rather than tacking them on as an afterthought. This architectural choice means reasoning is woven into everything the model does, enabling more nuanced, context-aware responses. The results speak for themselves—Gemini can handle tasks as complex as programming entire video games from a single prompt, something Google proudly showcases in their demos.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Google’s Accelerated Development Strategy

Google's not slowing down anytime soon. Their rapid development pace gives them a real edge in keeping that top spot. After being caught off guard by ChatGPT's release, they've kicked their timeline into high gear. Just look at the facts: Gemini 2.5 Pro arrived only three months after Gemini 2.0 Flash hit the scene. This quick turnaround suggests they've streamlined their research-to-deployment pipeline in ways that make it unlikely anyone will overtake them in the weeks ahead.

What's backing this sprint? Resources – and lots of them. Google describes their Gemini models as their "largest science and engineering project ever," which tells you everything about their commitment level. Their recent announcement about wider availability of Gemini 2.5 Pro included the revealing comment that "The team is sprinting, TPUs are running hot" – basically, they're going all-in to maintain momentum.

There's also method to their release strategy. Google typically drops experimental versions that dominate benchmarks first, then follows up with polished production models that incorporate feedback and safety improvements. This two-step approach lets them keep their benchmark crown while making their models practical for real-world use. Given this pattern, expect Google to keep prioritizing those benchmark numbers through April's end.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Benchmark Optimization Rumors

Word is spreading in AI circles that Google might have created a special version of Gemini 2.5 Pro specifically tweaked for LMArena evaluations. This isn't unprecedented – Meta already admitted to using an "experimental chat version" of their Llama 4 Maverick that outperforms what's publicly available. Tech discussions online suggest Google could be using several tactics to boost their scores:

1. They might be making their model unusually wordy with elaborate reasoning chains, potentially taking advantage of how human evaluators tend to prefer detailed explanations over brief ones.

2. Some say the benchmark version uses more emojis and casual conversation markers that appeal to human judges – quite different from Google's typically more professional tone.

3. There's talk that Google might have trained their model on LMArena's past battle data to learn which response styles tend to win votes.

4. Others believe Google keeps separate "benchmark-ready" versions with enhanced features that aren't available through their standard API.

These rumors gained steam after people noticed differences between how Gemini performs in benchmarks versus real-world use. A GitHub discussion (since removed) reportedly showed the LMArena version solving complex math with 92% accuracy compared to just 78% for the public API version using identical prompts. The timing has raised eyebrows too. Gemini climbed to the #1 spot right after LMSYS added multimodal inputs to their evaluation process – suggesting Google might have prioritized this feature specifically to excel in the benchmark.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Conclusion

Google's dominant position with Gemini 2.5 Pro presents a compelling investment opportunity in the current AI landscape. With a substantial 22-point ELO lead over competitors like Meta's Llama 4, Google has established clear technical superiority across multiple AI capabilities. This advantage stems from fundamental architectural innovations—particularly in integrated multimodal processing and built-in reasoning capabilities—that competitors cannot easily replicate in the short term. Google's accelerated development pace, demonstrated by releasing Gemini 2.5 Pro just three months after Gemini 2.0 Flash, indicates both technical momentum and organizational commitment to maintaining their lead. While rumors of benchmark-specific optimizations merit consideration, they don't diminish the underlying technological achievements that position Google ahead in the AI race.

Given these factors, it appears highly unlikely that any competitor will overtake Google's AI benchmark leadership before the end of April. With current odds at 64% and a potential 57% return, this presents an attractive risk-reward ratio for investors looking to capitalize on the ongoing AI competition among major tech companies.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Subscribe now

Market: Israel x Hamas ceasefire before May?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 72%

Return: 39%

Resolved by: End of April (1 month)

Position Size: Full

Welcome back to The Poly! We have seen some great returns in our last few trades, including a 30% return on Elon Musk’s net worth, and a 223% return on Ukraine energy ceasefire. We have also seen great returns on our trades that are still active, including a 25% return on Trump’s gold cards, a 35% return on Russia x Ukraine ceasefire before July, and a 57% return on DOGE auditing the IRS. If you followed these trades and our position sizing, your total account would be up 37% over the past two weeks. Today, we have a new trade idea that has the potential to return 39% over the next month. Let's dig into it.

The Breakdown of the Israel-Hamas Ceasefire

The fragile January ceasefire between Israel and Hamas didn't survive winter, shattering in mid-March when Israeli airstrikes pummeled Gaza, leaving hundreds dead and peace negotiations in tatters. As April begins, hopes for a new agreement have all but vanished. Military operations continue unabated, political will is nonexistent, the humanitarian situation grows more desperate by the day, and the gulf between each side's demands seems unbridgeable. With both parties digging in their heels, the diplomatic path forward looks increasingly like a dead end.

The ceasefire agreement brokered during the final days of the Biden administration - although it is debated whether Trump or Biden can take more of the credit – represented a significant diplomatic achievement after months of devastating conflict. Implemented on January 19, 2025, the agreement established a phased approach toward sustainable peace in the region. Phase one, completed March 1, saw Hamas release 25 living hostages and eight deceased captives in exchange for roughly 1,800 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. This successful first step proved both sides could deliver on promises under international supervision.

Phase two was set to begin just over two weeks later, aiming for the return of all remaining hostages and establishment of a permanent ceasefire. The third phase would have facilitated the return of all remaining deceased hostages and laid groundwork for Gaza's reconstruction.

But the transition never happened. As phase one concluded, talks immediately hit a wall. Hamas insisted on moving forward as planned, with spokesperson Hazem Qassem emphasizing their "full commitment to implementing all the terms of the agreement in all its stages and details." Meanwhile, Netanyahu's government pushed to extend phase one rather than advance to phase two—effectively trying to rewrite the agreement's core structure. This fundamental disconnect marked the beginning of the end, with mutual accusations of bad faith quickly undermining the fragile progress that had been made.

Obstacles to an April 2025 Ceasefire

Several key roadblocks make a new ceasefire in April virtually impossible, with both sides growing more rigid in their positions. The most glaring problem is that each side wants what the other absolutely refuses to give. Hamas won't budge from its demands for a permanent ceasefire, complete Israeli withdrawal, return of displaced Palestinians to northern Gaza, and what they call an "honorable prisoner exchange."

On the other side, Israel flatly rejects any deal that leaves Hamas standing. Netanyahu's government has promised to continue military operations "with increasing military strength," while the IDF has declared operations "will continue as long as necessary, and will expand beyond air strikes." This fundamental clash—Hamas demanding survival while Israel demands its elimination—creates a negotiating deadlock.

The hostage situation further complicates matters. By Israeli counts, Hamas still holds 59 captives, though only 24 are believed alive. This reduced number of living hostages weakens Hamas's bargaining position, possibly explaining their reluctance to release more captives without permanent ceasefire guarantees. Israel's military campaign seems partly designed to force Hamas into worse terms on hostage releases. But this approach may actually be decreasing the chances of recovery, as Hamas leaders like believing "their days are numbered"—have "limited or possibly nonexistent" reasons to compromise.

The political situation on both sides makes an April ceasefire nearly impossible, with leaders facing intense pressure against compromise. Netanyahu is boxed in by his far-right coalition partners who flatly oppose any deal allowing Hamas to survive. Key figures have threatened to bring down the government if Netanyahu returns to phase two of the original agreement instead of continuing military operations. These hardliners want not just Hamas's destruction but also "voluntary emigration" of Palestinians and new Jewish settlements in Gaza.

The Witkoff plan could have given Netanyahu "six weeks of breathing room and enough time to pass a budget by the end of the month," preventing his government's collapse. However by resuming hostilities, Netanyahu appears to have chosen military action over diplomacy, largely due to these domestic political pressures.

Hamas leaders face their own calculations that make compromise unattractive. With Israeli forces actively hunting senior Hamas figures, the group's leadership sees little benefit in negotiating when they believe Israel aims to eliminate them regardless of any agreement. As FDD Senior Advisor Richard Goldberg observed, "Hamas wants to survive... The more Hamas leaders believe they will survive without giving up their leverage — hostages — the more they will hold out." Moreover, the failure of the original ceasefire to progress to phase two as promised has likely convinced Hamas that Israel won't honor future agreements, further undermining any motivation to negotiate new terms.

Previous mediation efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States have thus far proven unsuccessful. Negotiations in Cairo in early March 2025 "bore no fruit" despite "intensive discussions". The collapse of previous mediation efforts has eroded trust in the process itself, making future negotiations more difficult.

Conclusion

Military escalation, clashing demands, political pressures, and failed mediation efforts have created a perfect storm that makes any April ceasefire virtually impossible. Israel's decision to break the existing agreement and resume military operations reveals a clear preference for battlefield solutions over diplomatic ones. At the same time, Hamas refuses to budge from its maximalist position or accept modified terms.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues to worsen under Israel's aid blockade and renewed bombing campaign. Yet even this catastrophe hasn't pushed either side toward compromise. With the US backing Israel's position and mediators' credibility damaged by past failures, the diplomatic framework needed to restart talks simply isn't there. Barring some dramatic and unexpected shift, a ceasefire in April remains extremely unlikely. Both sides seem prepared to continue fighting rather than find middle ground.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: Will DOGE audit the IRS before May?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 55%

Return: 82%

Resolved by: End of April (1 month)

Position Size: Medium

Hey all and welcome back to a new trade idea on The Poly. Today we are looking at DOGE auditing the IRS. Doge's IRS review has set off alarm bells in Washington. The team is digging into the tax agency's inner workings, raising eyebrows about possible budget slashing and who gets to see Americans' private financial information. Doge is pushing for access to the IRS's most sensitive data systems, including their master database – the Integrated Data Retrieval System. They're also combing through contracts and day-to-day operations, all in the name of trimming the fat and boosting efficiency.

Immediately after taking office, the DOGE team began scrutinizing federal agencies, starting with USAID and now moving on to the IRS. But their approach has sparked serious questions about whether these reviews qualify as legitimate audits. Critics point out that DOGE's examinations don't follow standard auditing playbooks. Professional audits require methodical planning, risk evaluation, evidence collection, testing, and formal reporting, which are all seemingly absent from DOGE's process. Instead, their reviews come across as disorganized and lacking the technical expertise needed for proper government oversight, raising doubts about both their methods and findings.

As you may have seen from previous trades on Polymarket, semantics matter a lot when it comes to resolutions. Polymarket will not view DOGE’s reviews as an official audit, especially if the team is denied access to important systems like the IDRS. Moreover, there are some large Polymarket whales on the side of no, which comes in handy when a market's rules are relatively vague, for example, that of the Fort Knox gold market. Nonetheless, I urge caution if you are planning to trade this, as Polymarket has been known to make some strange decisions when resolving markets.

Lack of Qualified Auditing Personnel

Critics argue DOGE's IRS review lacks credibility simply because the team doesn't include qualified auditors. Career federal auditors have bluntly stated that "comparing real auditing to what DOGE is doing, there's no comparison" and that "none of them are auditors." This expertise gap undercuts the legitimacy of their entire operation. The people DOGE sent to examine the IRS appear to be tech specialists and software engineers rather than professionals trained in audit standards and procedures. Case in point: DOGE member Gavin Kliger, who visited IRS offices, is a software engineer with no credentials in auditing or accounting. Without proper qualifications, many question whether DOGE can deliver reliable findings about an agency as complex as the IRS.

Absence of Systematic Auditing Methodology

Musk’s DOGE team at the IRS has tossed the auditing rulebook out the window, raising red flags about their methods. Real audits follow clear steps: planning, risk assessment, evidence collection, testing, and reporting. DOGE has ignored these basics. Their planning problems are obvious. Instead of carefully defining what they're examining, DOGE makes "hasty or capricious decisions" without proper preparation. Critics note they act without "public fact-finding" before jumping to conclusions. Professional auditors prioritize high-risk areas. Richard Chambers, an auditing expert, points out that DOGE should "follow the risks" but hasn't shown any systematic approach to their IRS review. They seem to be poking around randomly rather than focusing on likely problem areas.

Their data requests cross serious lines according to those in government. While legitimate audits use targeted sampling, DOGE has pushed for sweeping access to the IRS's Integrated Data Retrieval System—a database holding sensitive information on nearly every American taxpayer. This motherlode contains private details of 150 million tax filers, far beyond what's needed for an efficiency review. Adding to concerns, DOGE has "provided no public information about how it plans to protect the sensitive data it collects." Without clear security protocols, their approach falls dangerously short of professional standards.

Failure to Engage Stakeholders Appropriately

Professional audits require meaningful engagement with everyone involved, following established protocols. DOGE's approach to the IRS lacks the transparency that legitimate audits demand. They've kept their objectives, methods, and findings largely under wraps. Without open communication about what they're looking for and how they're looking for it, their review falls short of audit standards. They've also failed to properly consult with key stakeholders. Chambers recommends that DOGE should "solicit and respond to feedback from key stakeholders," but notes they haven't done this adequately. The ability to "listen, learn, and be responsive" is fundamental to proper auditing—yet it's noticeably missing from DOGE's playbook.

Non-Compliance with Federal Auditing Standards

Federal audits follow strict government standards set by organizations like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or agency inspectors general. These established frameworks ensure consistency, thoroughness, and reliability in oversight activities. DOGE's review completely sidesteps these established systems. The IRS already has a dedicated watchdog—the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)—specifically designed to audit the agency. This specialized office possesses the expertise, authority, and institutional knowledge to properly evaluate IRS operations. By operating outside these official channels, DOGE further undermines its credibility as a legitimate audit and raises questions about why existing oversight mechanisms were bypassed.

Equally concerning is DOGE's questionable independence. True audits require unbiased assessment free from outside influence or predetermined conclusions. Professional auditors maintain strict separation from the entities they evaluate to ensure objectivity. Critics worry that DOGE's review may be guided more by political objectives than by neutral evaluation of efficiency—violating a core principle of proper auditing practice. Without this fundamental independence, the findings cannot be considered reliable or authoritative, regardless of what they ultimately reveal.

Conclusion

DOGE's activities investigating the IRS simply don't qualify as a legitimate audit. They're missing all the essential elements of proper government oversight. Their team lacks people with actual auditing credentials or experience. There's no clear, structured approach to their work - it feels more like they're fishing for issues rather than following a methodical process. Their data requests cross inappropriate boundaries, and they've completely failed to work collaboratively with relevant stakeholders. Most importantly, they're ignoring the established federal standards that guide proper auditing work.

Real government auditing demands rigor, consistent methodology, true independence, and genuine expertise. From what we can see, DOGE's examination of the IRS falls short on all these counts. It looks less like professional oversight and more like an unstructured investigation without proper foundations.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: Russia x Ukraine ceasefire before July?

Trade: No

Current Odds: 57%

Return: 75%

Resolved by: End of June (3 months)

Position Size: Medium

Hey all and welcome back to The Poly. Before we get into this trade, I want to quickly mention that we have decided to create a fresh Polymarket account to follow the trades made on this newsletter. The goal of this is to make it easier to track our returns and see our entry and exit prices. You can track the account with this link. We also have a twitter account that you can find here.

Last Monday’s trade regarding Elon Musk’s net worth was unfortunately hit from left of field when the news came out about the Trump admin easing the tariff policy. It resulted in a massive rally across the board and resulted in a +10% rally for Tesla in one day. Nonetheless, we still have five trading days remaining and the position is still in contention to return a win. The Thursday trade made back any losses that may occur from the Musk trade plus additional profit, as we saw our ceasefire trade go from 31c to 100c within five days. If you followed our trades and positions sizes you would be up 50% on those two trades, and even if the Musk trade doesn’t go in our favour and goes to 0c, we would still have returned 40% on those two trades combined. If the Musk trades goes in our favour that turns into a +80% return. With that all being said, let’s jump into today’s trade.

Why a Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire Isn't Happening Anytime Soon

The chances of Ukraine and Russia sitting down for a comprehensive peace agreement in the next few months are slim to none. Despite occasional glimmers of hope—like the recent March 2025 agreement to pause attacks on energy infrastructure—the fundamental roadblocks remain stubbornly in place.

What's preventing progress? It comes down to three key issues:

Fundamentally Incompatible Demands: Both sides have drawn lines in the sand that the other simply isn't willing to cross. Ukraine continues to demand full territorial integrity, while Russia maintains claims on occupied territories.

Broken Trust: Previous partial agreements have been repeatedly violated, creating a toxic environment of distrust. Each side views potential negotiations as another arena for strategic positioning rather than genuine dialogue.

Strategic Calculations: Military leaders and political strategists on both sides seem more invested in maintaining pressure than finding a diplomatic off-ramp.

The limited truces we've seen—like the energy infrastructure agreement—are more like temporary pressure valves than genuine peace mechanisms. They demonstrate that some communication is possible, but they're nowhere near addressing the conflict's core tensions.

In the coming months, expect more of the same: localized agreements, tactical maneuvers, and continued strategic standoff. Real peace remains a distant prospect.

Geopolitical Conditions

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine remains fundamentally deadlocked by deeply incompatible territorial claims. At the heart of the dispute is Russia's unyielding demand for formal recognition of its territorial seizures, including Crimea and four partially occupied eastern provinces: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. President Vladimir Putin has been unambiguous about his conditions for peace, repeatedly stating that Ukraine must "officially cede sovereignty over these regions" and renounce its NATO aspirations. These demands stand in stark contradiction to Ukraine's constitutional commitment to preserving its territorial integrity. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently refused to legitimize Russia's annexations, creating an almost insurmountable diplomatic impasse.

The Kremlin's June 2024 ultimatum went even further, demanding not just territorial concessions but also the lifting of Western sanctions and guarantees preventing Ukrainian military modernization. In essence, Russia is seeking nothing short of Kyiv's complete capitulation—a scenario Ukraine has flatly rejected. Ukraine's counter-proposals reveal an equally uncompromising stance. The country is demanding full Russian withdrawal, the return of abducted children, NATO membership, and robust security guarantees. These demands are fundamentally incompatible with Moscow's strategic objectives. The promising 2022 draft peace treaty, which had nearly secured Ukrainian neutrality, ultimately collapsed due to Russia's unwillingness to withdraw from occupied territories.

Recent diplomatic efforts, including U.S.-backed proposals for a 30-day comprehensive ceasefire, have similarly failed to gain traction. Zelenskyy remains wary of any pause that might inadvertently freeze frontlines in Russia's favor, drawing painful parallels to the ineffective 2014 Minsk Agreements. The result is a conflict characterized more by its intractability than by any clear path to resolution.

Trust Deficits and Compliance Failures

The delicate fabric of diplomatic negotiations between Russia and Ukraine continues to unravel, with each attempted truce exposing deeper layers of mistrust. The March 2025 energy infrastructure agreement, initially conceived as a potential confidence-building measure, has quickly devolved into yet another arena of mutual recrimination.

Russia alleges Ukrainian attacks on power grids in Luhansk and gas facilities in Crimea, while Ukraine documents ongoing Russian drone strikes targeting civilian areas—all of which occurred during active negotiation periods. These incidents are far more than mere technical breaches; they represent a systemic erosion of diplomatic goodwill. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has acknowledged the opaque nature of these technical discussions, with both sides seemingly more interested in finding justifications for military escalation than in genuine reconciliation.

The shadow of previous failed negotiations looms large over current diplomatic efforts. The 2022 Istanbul talks, where Russia spectacularly reneged on withdrawal promises in the wake of the Bucha massacre, remain a fresh wound in Ukrainian collective memory. The Black Sea grain initiative's suspension in 2023, ostensibly over alleged Ukrainian "provocations," further reinforced the perception of Moscow's strategic duplicity. Ukrainian officials now approach Russian commitments with a profound skepticism that borders on resignation. Each ceasefire discussion is viewed not as a genuine peace overture, but as a tactical pause—a strategic breathing space for military repositioning. The recurring pattern of agreement, violation, and renewed conflict has transformed diplomatic engagement into something resembling a performative ritual, devoid of authentic potential for resolution.

Russia’s Strategic Use of Ceasefire Talks

In the intricate chess game of international diplomacy, Russia has refined a strategy that turns negotiations into a weapon of strategic delay. The Kremlin's negotiation tactics reveal a sophisticated approach to international pressure. By tying Black Sea security agreements to technical financial demands—such as reinstating the Russian Agricultural Bank's SWIFT access—Russia skillfully shifts the narrative. The message is clear: any diplomatic impasse is not of their making, but a result of Western intransigence.

European internal divisions provide additional leverage. Disagreements over energy sanctions and reconstruction funding create fissures that Moscow is all too happy to exploit. The result is a diplomatic landscape where prolonged talks become a strategic objective in themselves—a way to continue military operations while maintaining a veneer of diplomatic engagement. In essence, Russia has transformed negotiations from a path to resolution into a tool of strategic manipulation, carefully calibrated to maintain pressure, divide international support, and create space for continued military objectives.

Conclusion

The current market sentiment around a potential Ukraine-Russia ceasefire fundamentally misunderstands the conflict's deep-rooted complexities. While Polymarket estimates a 43% probability against a truce by July 2025, this figure dramatically overstates the likelihood of peace. A more realistic assessment places the probability closer to 10-15%, reflecting the structural barriers that continue to drive this conflict.

Three critical factors make a comprehensive resolution extremely unlikely. First, the vast chasm between Russia's maximalist territorial demands and Ukraine's non-negotiable sovereignty creates an almost insurmountable diplomatic impasse. Second, a history of repeatedly violated agreements has completely eroded trust, rendering any verification mechanisms essentially meaningless. Third, both nations currently possess strategic incentives to continue the conflict, particularly as military momentum remains fluid. Tactical pauses—like the March 2025 energy infrastructure truce—might suggest potential for conflict management, but they are more accurately understood as temporary pressure valves rather than genuine pathways to peace. The Kremlin's approach epitomizes this dynamic, using negotiations as a tool to extract concessions while maintaining battlefield flexibility. By linking Black Sea security discussions to technical financial demands like SWIFT access for its agricultural bank, Russia demonstrates its mastery of weaponized diplomacy.

Unless fundamental military dynamics force an absolute stalemate or external actors can broker truly enforceable compromises—both of which seem improbable in the current three-month horizon—this conflict will persist in its current state of managed escalation. Peace remains more of a theoretical construct than a practical possibility.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: How Many Gold Cards Will Trump Sell in 2025?

Trade: Zero

Current Odds: 20%

Return: 400%

Resolved by: End of 2025

Position Size: Medium

Today we're examining President Trump's ambitious Gold Card proposal and the corresponding market odds. Currently, the probability that zero Gold Cards will be sold in 2025 is priced at just 20% - a figure that seems surprisingly low. In this analysis, I'll explain why, even if the Trump administration is fully committed to this initiative, it's highly unlikely that the entire program will be established and operational before year's end. The bureaucratic and logistical hurdles involved in creating such a system typically require significant time to navigate.

One important caveat: Polymarket's resolution criteria are often ambiguous and subject to interpretation. There exists a scenario where the Trump administration might begin accepting pre-orders for Gold Cards while the actual implementation remains incomplete. This situation would likely trigger a dispute over market resolution, so traders should proceed with caution.

Congressional Authority Is Pivotal

Constitutional Power and Immigration Law weaves a complex story about executive authority. The U.S. Constitution places the power to regulate immigration and distribute residency visas firmly in Congress's hands, not the president's. This constitutional framework means that major changes to our immigration system—like eliminating or drastically changing the established EB-5 program—can only happen through congressional legislation. Trump's idea to replace the EB-5 with a $5 million residency program isn't simply a matter of executive rebranding; it requires new statutory law. Without Congress passing legislation that specifically authorizes this change, the proposal stands on shaky legal ground.

Legal experts have been vocal about these limitations. Organizations spanning the political spectrum, including the American Immigration Council and the Cato Institute, consistently emphasize that executive power over immigration has clear boundaries. Without congressional support, any attempt to implement the proposed "gold card" program would almost certainly face legal challenges. The resulting court battles over presidential authority could tie up the program in litigation for years, potentially preventing it from ever becoming reality.

Political Divisions and Narrow Majorities in Congress

Fragmented Support Within the GOP presents a complex political reality for the new administration. Although President Trump maintains strong backing from his base, the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are razor-thin. These narrow margins create significant hurdles for implementing sweeping changes to immigration policy, particularly when such changes might threaten established interests. Many Republican lawmakers, especially those representing districts that have benefited from the current EB-5 program, would likely resist a policy that dramatically increases the investment requirement to $5 million.

The challenges extend beyond just Republican party divisions. There's meaningful skepticism across the political spectrum about this approach. Many Democrats—joined by moderate Republicans—fundamentally question the ethics of what appears to be "selling" residency rights. They view this as potentially undermining core American values of fairness and merit-based immigration. The political consequences of supporting a program that seems to commodify pathways to citizenship could be substantial for lawmakers. Given these contentious dynamics, Congress may hesitate to provide the broad executive authority needed to implement the proposed gold card program, effectively creating a legislative stalemate that prevents the initiative from moving forward.

Delayed Implementation and Uncertain Timelines

Trump's gold card immigration proposal faces significant challenges in becoming actual policy. The path to implementation involves a complex legislative process that will likely extend well beyond 2025. Congressional approval requires extensive debate, negotiation, and compromise among various interest groups with competing priorities in immigration policy. The proposal will need to withstand intense scrutiny from lawmakers representing different political perspectives. Each section of the plan will be critically examined, potentially leading to substantial modifications or complete restructuring. The narrow margins in Congress make comprehensive agreement extremely difficult, which means the original proposal could emerge dramatically changed—if it survives the legislative process at all.

Legal challenges present another substantial barrier. Immigration advocacy organizations and civil rights groups are prepared to contest the proposal through lengthy court proceedings. These legal challenges will focus on examining the constitutional boundaries of the executive branch's authority in immigration policy. Such litigation does more than delay implementation—it creates a broader atmosphere of uncertainty that could discourage potential participants and investors.

The practical reality is that major policy changes require extensive time, negotiation, and consensus-building. Trump's gold card initiative appears more likely to become a prolonged policy discussion rather than an immediate, actionable program. Stakeholders will need to prepare for a drawn-out process that could easily extend multiple years beyond its initial proposal.

Impact on the Broader Immigration Reform Agenda

Trump's gold card immigration proposal isn't just another policy pitch—it's a high-stakes political chess game playing out against the backdrop of America's increasingly complex immigration debate. This single initiative is caught in a web of competing priorities: border security, family reunification, and the ongoing challenge of addressing undocumented immigration. The reality is that big policy changes rarely sail smoothly through Washington. The gold card plan could easily get bogged down in legislative negotiations, potentially emerging so watered down that it barely resembles the original concept—if it survives at all.

Take the existing EB-5 program, for instance. It's been a fixture of U.S. immigration policy since 1990, deeply embedded in local economies and regional development strategies. Lawmakers aren't just looking at a simple policy swap; they're contemplating a fundamental systemic shift that could ripple through entire economic ecosystems. Communities that have built infrastructure and investment strategies around the current program aren't going to let those change without a fight. The smart money is on a slow, contentious process. Cross-party agreement seems more like a distant dream than an imminent reality. For now, the gold card proposal looks more like a political talking point than a policy ready to be implemented—another reminder that in Washington, bold ideas often get ground down by the machinery of governance.

Let's be real: Trump's flashy gold card immigration plan sounds great on paper, but it's got a very small chance of being implemented in 2025. Sure, it's got all the makings of a headline-grabbing proposal—promising to tackle immigration and the deficit in one fell swoop—but the political roadblocks are massive. Between razor-thin congressional margins, constitutional hurdles, and a partisan gridlock, this plan is more likely to collect dust in a filing cabinet than actually get implemented. We're talking about a proposal that could easily get tangled up in legislative red tape and courtroom battles for years to come.

Bottom line? It's a bold idea that makes for great campaign rhetoric, but right now, it's more of a political fantasy than a real policy. Don't hold your breath waiting for those gold cards to start rolling out in 2025.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: Energy infrastructure ceasefire in Ukraine in March?

Current odds: 31%

Return: 223%

Resolved by: March 31st

Position Size: Medium

Welcome back to another trade idea on The Poly. Our last trade regarding Elon Musk’s net worth is up 10% in two days,and well on track for that 30% gain when it resolves next week. Today we are going back to Ukraine. This time we’re looking at the energy infrastructure ceasefire. Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy have all verbally agreed to this deal in principle, and all that’s left is ironing out a few specific details regarding which sites are off limits during the ceasefire. The US admin is meeting with the Ukrainian admin in Saudi Arabia over the next couple of days to iron these details out, in my eyes it's extremely close to a donedeal, yet the market is showing just 31% odds of it being officially agreed to before the end of March. Let’s dig into the details and understanding why the odds of this agreement happening is likely much higher than just 31%.

Shared Strategic Imperatives

Both sides understand that de-escalating the conflict—even temporarily—serves broader strategic interests. For Ukraine, the benefits are immediate and tangible: its energy sector, which has sustained massive damage (with 70% of thermal capacity either destroyed or occupied and damages running into the billions), desperately needs a pause to allow for repairs and stabilization. In contrast, Russia faces international pressure and internal costs associated with ongoing energy strikes, making a temporary halt a calculated risk to preserve its own long-term interests.

High-Level Political Momentum

The foundation for this ceasefire comes from critical high-level talks. Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy have all verbally committed to the process - a rare alignment despite their fundamental distrust of one another. Saudi Arabia will host what many see as the final meeting to resolve remaining issues, primarily identifying which energy facilities must be protected. With all three leaders already expressing support for the framework, it seems only minor details stand in the way of formal agreement.

Meanwhile, Zelenskyy is pushing hard for a separate mineral deal he considers essential for Ukraine's reconstruction funding. He's treading carefully after the heated confrontation in the Oval Office, knowing that another misstep could endanger crucial financial support and further damage his already strained relationship with Trump. Putin, for his part, is playing a shrewd diplomatic game - quietly aligning with Trump's economic and geopolitical goals to remain in his good graces. By presenting himself as the more accommodating partner willing to make concessions within this limited ceasefire framework, Putin aims to keep Trump engaged while positioning the Kremlin to influence the narrative and gain strategic advantages as negotiations continue to unfold.

International Mediation and Economic Pressures

Beyond the immediate political considerations, there is an unmistakable international and economic impetus driving the deal. The U.S. has shown a willingness not only to mediate but also to potentially manage critical assets such as Ukraine’s nuclear facilities—an offer that underscores the high priority given to ensuring energy stability in the region. With winter looming and temperatures predicted to drop well below -10°C, both Ukraine’s leadership and its Western allies are under tremendous pressure to secure a window for repairing and sustaining the energy network.

The Role of U.S. Influence

The Saudi Arabia meeting represents far more than a ceremonial gathering—it's a critical juncture where American diplomatic power is poised to resolve outstanding issues. For Ukraine, the direct involvement of the U.S. administration provides crucial assurance that their concerns, especially regarding energy infrastructure protection, won't be overlooked. American officials clearly understand that any extended disruption to Ukraine's energy systems would create a dangerous double threat: worsening the humanitarian crisis while simultaneously sending shockwaves through energy markets across the region. This practical understanding is expected to accelerate agreement on remaining points of contention, making the prospects for a completed deal significantly stronger than what current market predictions suggest.

Looking Ahead: A Calculated Path to De-escalation

While the ceasefire agreement remains limited in scope—covering only energy-related targets and not a full military disengagement—the logic behind it is clear. Both sides are acutely aware that a stable, albeit temporary, lull in hostilities can pave the way for broader negotiations down the line. Even if the full ceasefire remains elusive for now, securing the energy infrastructure ceasefire represents a pragmatic and much-needed step toward easing the broader conflict.

As Ukraine’s delegation heads to Saudi Arabia, all eyes will be on whether this high-level diplomacy can deliver the final nod to what appears to be a near-finalized agreement. For now, traders should note that behind the market’s 31% odds lies a convergence of strategic imperatives and international backing that makes the deal’s completion not only plausible but highly likely.

Thank you for reading The Poly, the #1 newsletter for prediction markets.

If you enjoyed this analysis, please help us by clicking the “♡ Like” button.

Risk warning and disclaimer: The Poly Newsletter is for information and entertainment purposes only and should not be regarded as investment advice. Betting on prediction markets is high risk and can result in significant financial loss. Professional bettors typically risk no more than 0.5-2% of their capital on any one trade. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.

Market: Elon Musk’s net worth to be below $330bn by March 31st

Current odds: 77%

Return: 30%

Resolved by: March 31st

Position Size: Full

Welcome back to the Poly. Before we get into today’s trade I want to take a moment to review our results thus far. We posted our first article on February 10th, so just over one month ago. Since then, we have been tracking our returns using a $500 test account, which is currently sitting at $737.17, giving us a total gain of 47% in just over one month of trading. We split our trades into three different position sizes - small ($10), medium ($50), and full ($100) - based on the risk profile of each trade. Below is a graph illustrating every market we have written about, what the price was when we posted the article, and the current price.

The first month was a great month of returns for us. To put this return into perspective, 47% per month compounded over 12 months is a 100x return, which would turn our original $500 into $50,000. Of course, it is unlikely that we will continue compounding at this rate for an entire year due to scaling limitations, but it does show how profitable Polymarket can be if you do the right research and make the right trades.

Elon Musk's Net Worth: Current Status

Today's trade centers on Elon Musk's net worth as of March 31st, as measured by the Bloomberg Billionaire Index, which currently values his fortune at $312 billion. The majority of this immense wealth is derived from his ownership stakes in private ventures such as SpaceX and X (formerly Twitter). Since private company valuations are reassessed far less frequently than their publicly-traded counterparts, we can reasonably assume these components of his portfolio will maintain stable valuations over the coming two-week period.

This leaves Tesla—Musk's only publicly traded major holding—as the sole variable that will meaningfully impact his official net worth in the short term. Musk currently holds approximately 13% of Tesla's outstanding shares, a stake valued at roughly $97 billion at current market prices.

To reach the $330 billion threshold, Musk's net worth would need to increase by $18 billion from its current level. When we isolate the factors that could realistically affect his net worth within this brief timeframe, the market question essentially becomes: Can Tesla's stock price surge by 18.5% over the next two weeks?

Why a Large Tesla Rally Is Highly Improbable

Tesla's stock would need to climb to approximately $272.40 to push Musk's net worth to $330 billion—a scenario that appears increasingly unlikely given multiple converging headwinds:

Fundamental Challenges

Tesla's business fundamentals have deteriorated significantly, creating substantial obstacles to near-term price appreciation. Q1 2024 automotive revenue dropped 8% year-over-year to $19.8 billion, with European sales collapsing by 45% in January alone. The situation appears even more dire in China and Australia, where sales have plunged approximately 50%. Analysts have consequently revised their Q1 2025 delivery projections downward to below 387,000 units—a significant reduction from previous estimates exceeding 400,000 vehicles.

Despite having already declined 39% year-to-date, Tesla still trades at an extraordinary P/E ratio of 110, dramatically higher than the S&P 500's average of approximately 20. Even at the current price of $238, the stock remains priced for explosive growth that current operational realities simply don't justify. This fundamental disconnect between valuation and performance creates a significant barrier to the kind of rapid price appreciation needed to boost Musk's net worth in the near term.

Operational Risks

The company faces serious operational challenges that further diminish the likelihood of a rapid stock price recovery. Tesla's aggressive price reductions, implemented to counteract declining demand, have significantly eroded profit margins. This deterioration is reflected in 2024 earnings per share, which have plummeted 52% to just $2.04. Such dramatic profit compression makes it exceedingly difficult to justify the premium valuation necessary for a substantial stock price increase.

Highly anticipated product refreshes like the updated Model Y and planned new vehicle launches continue to face delays. Perhaps more concerning, Tesla's full self-driving technology and robotaxi ambitions—cornerstones of the company's future valuation thesis—remain unrealized after years of missed deadlines and technological setbacks. These innovation delays undermine investor confidence in the company's ability to maintain its technological edge and future growth trajectory.

External Pressures

External factors compound Tesla's difficulties and create additional barriers to short-term price appreciation. Elon Musk's increasingly vocal political positions, including his support for Donald Trump and various controversial right-wing groups, have alienated consumers in critical European markets. This impact is particularly evident in Germany and France, where Tesla sales cratered by 76% year-over-year in February. Such dramatic consumer backlash in key markets raises serious questions about the company's near-term sales prospects.

Escalating tariffs between the United States and China threaten to disrupt Tesla's supply chains and restrict access to key markets, introducing further uncertainty into the company's operational outlook. These trade tensions add another layer of complexity to Tesla's global operations and cast doubt on its ability to navigate an increasingly challenging geopolitical landscape.

Market Sentiment

Current market sentiment provides little basis for optimism regarding an imminent price surge. While some bullish analysts maintain targets as high as $550 (Wedbush), bearish forecasts such as JP Morgan's $120 price target highlight profound skepticism about Tesla's growth trajectory. The consensus 12-month target of $340.31 suggests no clear catalyst for a sharp near-term rebound. This analyst divergence reflects broader market uncertainty about Tesla's future prospects.

Recent price action has been decidedly negative, with the stock breaking through critical support at $263. Although the Relative Strength Index of 24.49 indicates oversold conditions, no clear reversal pattern has emerged to suggest an imminent bounce. Technical indicators thus provide little evidence for a rapid recovery in the near term.

Limited Short-Term Catalysts

While upcoming events such as Q1 delivery results (expected April 2) and potential robotaxi updates (anticipated in June) could introduce volatility, neither seems likely to trigger the magnitude of price movement required. Delivery estimates have already been substantially downgraded, reducing the potential for positive surprise. Additionally, Tesla's history of missed deadlines regarding FSD and robotaxi technology has eroded credibility around these announcements, diminishing their potential impact on stock price.

Given this constellation of challenges, a 18.5% rally within just two weeks would require an extraordinary and unexpected positive development—something Tesla's current trajectory and prevailing market sentiment provide little reason to anticipate. The combination of fundamental weakness, operational challenges, external pressures, and negative market sentiment creates a formidable barrier to the kind of rapid price appreciation needed to boost Musk's net worth to $330 billion by the end of March.

Market: 500+ Measles cases in the US before April?

Return: 426%

Resolved by: End of March

Position size: Medium

Welcome back to The Poly. Our first trade from last week - Will Epstein files be released by Friday - cashed in and gave us an easy 25% gain in four days. Our second trade of last week - Ukraine agrees to the Trump Mineral Deal before April - is still sitting at the 30% where we originally posted about it. As five days have passed and no news has come out about any advancement of the deal, we believe this market is still undervalued. There is an upcoming meeting between the US and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia, in which the mineral deal is meant to be negotiated, but this suggests to us that the progress of the deal has actually backtracked since we originally posted. Before Zelenskyy went to the White House the deal was all but confirmed, but now if there is a need for negotiations it means that the original deal is no longer agreed upon. Negotiations like this take time, especially if there are large disagreements. This deal will likely be signed at some point, but the likelihood of it happening in the next three weeks is likely much less than the 70% suggested by Polymarket.

We also still have the “Will DOGE audit Fort Knox before May?” trade open. That has returned us 125% since we posted the idea, going from 28% to currently sitting at 63%. We still believe this market will resolve to no, but for more risk-averse traders this might be a good time to trim the position considering the large gain across a short couple of weeks.

Today we are looking at the Measles outbreak in the US. As of March 6, 2025, there were 222 confirmed cases, with the majority in Texas (198 cases) and ongoing outbreaks in multiple states. Our research suggests the measles case number in the US may reach over 500 by March 31, 2025, with a 70% probability, based on current trends and outbreak characteristics.

Current Situation

We're seeing quite a worrying measles outbreak right now. According to the CDC's latest update from March 6th, there are 222 cases across the country. Texas is getting hit the hardest by far, with 198 cases just in the South Plains area. New Mexico has about 10 cases too. The disease has spread to several other states as well - Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, plus New York City. What's really concerning is that two people have already died - one death is confirmed as measles-related, and they're still investigating the second one. Vaccination status reveals 94% of cases are unvaccinated or of unknown status, with only 4% having received one MMR dose and 2% two doses, underscoring a significant vulnerability in the population.

Growth Trends and Rate Analysis

Between February 25th and March 6th, Texas jumped from 124 cases to 198 - that's 74 new cases in just 10 days, or about 7.4 new cases every day. Compare that to before February 25th, when they were seeing roughly 4 new cases daily since the outbreak started around January 25th. The situation is clearly getting worse, likely because measles spreads like wildfire when vaccination rates are low.

Looking ahead to the end of March, if Texas keeps adding cases at this current rate of 7.4 per day, they'll see about 185 more cases over the next 25 days. That would push their total to around 383 cases. For the rest of the country, which currently has 24 cases total, they're adding new cases much more slowly - about 0.58 cases per day. At that pace, they'd add about 15 more cases by March 31st, bringing their total to around 39. So nationwide, we're looking at approximately 422 cases by the end of March if cases grow linearly.

However, Measles is a highly-infectious disease; up to 90% of non-immune people close to the infected person will be infected. Infected people can spread measles to others from 4 days before through 4 days after the rash appears. Each infected person potentially spreads it to 12-18 others in communities with low vaccination rates. The health reports are pretty clear about how quickly this can spiral. When we look at what's happening in Texas, there's a clear pattern of acceleration that's pretty worrying.

From February 25th to March 6th, Texas went from 124 cases to 198 cases in just 10 days. That's not just simple addition - it's growing at about 4.9% every single day. You can get the exponential growth rate using this equation: 198 = 124 × (1 + growth rate)^10.

If this 4.9% daily growth continues for the next 25 days, Texas alone would hit around 642 cases by the end of March. Add in the other 39 cases we're expecting from the rest of the country, and we're looking at 681 total cases nationwide. Add in the exponential rate that will likely occur to the cases in the rest of the country, it is likely there will be more than 39 cases from the other states too. That would blow past the 500 mark by quite a bit.

Probability Assessment and Rationale

The 70% probability that cases will exceed 500 by March 31, 2025, was derived by assigning probabilities to different growth scenarios based on recent trends and potential interventions:

Exponential Growth (40% likelihood): Total cases around 680, above 500, reflecting the contagious nature of measles and low vaccination rates, especially in Gaines County.

Constant Recent Growth Rate (30% likelihood): Using the most recent rate of ~14.8 per day for Texas, total cases around 600, above 500, if the high rate continues.

Decelerating to Average Growth (20% likelihood): Using an average rate of ~3.05 per day, total cases around 420, below 500, if public health measures start to slow the spread.

Significant Drop Due to Interventions (10% likelihood): Total cases much lower, below 500, if vaccination drives and isolation are highly effective.

Adding the probabilities where cases exceed 500 (40% + 30% = 70%), we arrive at the 70% probability. This assessment accounts for the recent acceleration in cases, the challenge of containing spread in under-vaccinated communities, and the potential for public health measures to mitigate but not fully stop the outbreak.

Influencing Factors and Public Health Measures

There are a few key things that'll really determine whether we cross that 500-case threshold or not. The biggest issue is definitely the vaccination gaps we're seeing. Almost 94% of the people who've gotten measles this year either weren't vaccinated or we don't know their status. That's huge. Take Gaines County in Texas - according to AP News, nearly 14% of school kids there have vaccine exemptions. That's creating the perfect environment for measles to run wild.

It's not just a Texas problem either. Across the country, kindergarten MMR vaccination rates dropped to 92.7% last year. That might sound high, but experts say we need at least 95% for herd immunity to actually work. We're falling short at exactly the wrong time.

Health officials are scrambling to get ahead of this. Texas health departments are running vaccination campaigns and setting up isolation protocols. They're making vaccines available through local providers and pharmacies, and they're posting updates twice weekly - Tuesdays and Fridays. The CDC is also pushing hard for travelers to get vaccinated since that's how measles often jumps between communities. It's unclear if these efforts will be enough, especially in rural areas where it's harder to coordinate these campaigns. The next few weeks will be critical in seeing whether we can turn this around before it gets much worse.

Conclusion

Our research suggests a 70% probability that measles cases will reach over 500 by March 31, 2025, driven by accelerating growth in Texas, particularly in Gaines County with 137 cases and low vaccination rates for kindergartners, despite public health efforts. This projection is based on detailed analysis of current data, growth trends, and influencing factors, with an acknowledgment of the uncertainty introduced by containment measures and the potential economic strain on rural areas. In conclusion, the 70% probability of over 500 cases by March 31 is much higher than the 19% probability suggested by Polymarket, creating a very lucrative expected value trade.

Market: Ukraine agrees to Trump mineral deal before April

Trade: No at 30% odds

Return: 233% (resolved at the end of a March)

Welcome back to The Poly. Our last idea has returned 16% in two days, growing to a nice 25% gain if all goes well until the market resolves tomorrow. Today we are looking at the minerals deal between the US and Ukraine, despite the market title being about Ukraine agreeing to the deal, the rules state that this market only resolves to yes once the deal is officially signed.

The TL;DR of this article is that the market is currently pricing a 30% probability that the deal isn’t signed in March. I go into detail about why this may be mispriced, and I believe the true probability of the deal not being signed this month is likely closer to 50%. Given that, we have a large expected value trade here. I am putting a medium size position on this trade, given that there is still a possibility the deal does indeed get signed.

The Status and Prospects of the US-Ukraine Mineral Deal in March 2025

The proposed mineral deal between the US and Ukraine has been a rollercoaster lately. Since late February, we've seen diplomatic drama, false starts, and a whole lot of uncertainty. As of March 6, both countries still haven't signed anything, despite early hopes they would. The deal would basically give America some control over Ukraine's minerals in exchange for investment and possibly security arrangements. Unfortunately for proponents of the deal, things got messy after Presidents Trump and Zelensky had quite the public confrontation at the White House.

Recent Diplomatic Breakdown and Attempted Recovery

Things really fell apart during Zelensky's White House visit on February 28. What should have been a simple signing ceremony turned into an embarrassing public spat that's completely reshaped how these countries deal with each other. Trump, Vance, and Zelensky got into a heated shouting match right in front of journalists and TV cameras - not exactly diplomatic gold. Afterward, Zelensky left Washington empty-handed, leaving everyone wondering what would happen next.

The aftermath got ugly fast. On March 4, Trump pulled the plug on over $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine - a huge shift in American support. We're talking hundreds of millions in weapons that were already on their way. Russia's spokesman Peskov was pretty pleased, suggesting this might finally push Ukraine toward peace talks. This sudden aid cutoff put even more pressure on Ukraine to reconsider their stance on the minerals deal.

Trying to patch things up, Zelensky posted a long social media message on March 4, thanking America for its support and saying Ukraine would sign the minerals deal "at any time and in any convenient format." Trump acknowledged this during his address to Congress later that day, even reading parts of it out loud. He quoted Zelensky saying: "Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible" and "regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it at any time that is convenient for you."

Terms and Structure of the Proposed Mineral Deal

So what's this deal actually about? It would create a jointly managed reconstruction fund with big economic implications for both nations. Ukraine would kick in 50% of future money from state-owned mineral resources - oil, gas, and logistics infrastructure. Ukrainian Prime Minister Shmyhal says Kiev and Washington would manage the fund as equals, though the exact details are still a bit fuzzy.

America would own the maximum stake allowed under US law, according to draft agreements journalists have seen. The fund would invest in promoting "the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine" - basically a reinvestment model for reconstruction and development. This setup could give Ukraine access to American investment expertise while giving the US influence over (and potential benefits from) Ukraine's natural resources.

The negotiation process hasn't been smooth sailing. The US apparently presented three different proposals, with Ukraine rejecting the first two because they didn't include security commitments from Washington. Even the third version, which came closest to being accepted, doesn't have concrete security promises - just vague language about promoting Ukraine's "safety, security and prosperity."

Obstacles to Finalizing the Deal in March

Despite both sides saying they want to reach an agreement, several major roadblocks could prevent anything from happening this month. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who's been negotiating directly with Zelensky, bluntly answered "Not at present" when asked on March 3 if the economic deal was still on the table. Sources say the terms might change because Trump reportedly now wants a "bigger, better deal."

Another sticking point? The Trump administration doesn't want to include explicit security guarantees for Ukraine. US officials keep arguing that the economic agreement itself is a form of security guarantee and that Europe should take the lead on Ukraine's defense. This clashes with what Zelensky wants - more concrete American security commitments - creating a fundamental tension in the negotiations.

Then there are practical challenges about the actual minerals involved. According to Foreign Policy, Ukraine might not even have the valuable rare earth minerals both sides keep talking about in public. The country apparently has no commercial deposits of rare earth elements and relies on outdated Soviet-era geological mapping. Plus, even if these resources exist, developing them would be incredibly difficult with the ongoing war, especially since Russia controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory, including significant portions of its mineral reserves.

Competing Claims About the Deal's Status

We're getting mixed messages about where things stand. Reuters reported that the US and Ukraine were getting ready to sign the deal on March 4, with sources saying Trump planned to announce it during his address to Congress. But US officials disputed this, and no agreement happened that day. Administration officials told CBS News on March 4 that there was no plan for Trump or his advisors to sign anything.

Despite the contradictions, Vice President Vance seems optimistic, saying, "I think the president is still committed to the mineral deal," and "I think we've heard some positive things, but not yet, of course, a signature from our friends in Ukraine." This suggests they're still talking rather than close to signing.

Broader Geopolitical Context and Implications

All of this is happening against a backdrop of shifting US foreign policy under Trump and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Russia currently holds about 20% of Ukrainian land, including the eastern Donbas region and Crimea, which contains a significant chunk of Ukraine's mineral reserves. These occupied areas have rare earth elements used in defense, aerospace, tech, and energy production, making them strategically important to both Ukraine and the US.

Ukraine supposedly holds about 5% of the world's total reserves of rare earth elements, compared to America's estimated 1-2%, despite the US covering about 12 times as much territory. This resource imbalance helps explain why America is so interested in accessing Ukrainian minerals. But mining experts caution that developing these resources would take years of investment even during peacetime, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimating that "the United States may not yield benefits for another 20 years."

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war makes everything more complicated. Trump has mentioned having "serious discussions with Russia" about the conflict, though he didn't give many details during his congressional address. The European Union has apparently been left out of US-Russian negotiations over a potential ceasefire, which has allies worried that any peace deal might favor Russian interests.

Conclusion

As of March 6, 2025, nothing's been signed yet, even though both sides say they're willing to make a deal. Zelensky has publicly stated Ukraine's ready to sign "at any time and in any convenient format," but Trump seems to be holding out for better terms. The history of failed negotiations, recent diplomatic tensions, and practical challenges about Ukraine's actual mineral resources all suggest that finalizing anything this month will be tough.

The potential deal would create a jointly managed investment fund with Ukraine contributing 50% of proceeds from its state-owned mineral resources, but it doesn't include the security guarantees that Kiev wants. With US military aid to Ukraine currently on hold and Trump talking separately with Russia, this mineral agreement has become even more important as a potential way for US-Ukraine cooperation to continue. Whether they can work through their differences and finalize something this month is anyone's guess - with contradicting reports and ongoing negotiations, it looks like more diplomatic heavy lifting will be needed.

Market: Epstein files released this week?

Return: 25% (resolved by Friday)

Welcome back to The Poly. Our last couple of ideas have been small trades based on high-risk high-reward outcomes to try to get that big homerun type of play. Today, we are going to get back on track with our usual safer style of trading.

We all saw the news late last week about the Epstein files being released - and the mess around the delays, redactions, and the FBI holding thousands of files back. Polymarket has added another market for new Epstein files, related to newer files after the so-called “Phase 1” files were released. We are going with the no side of this trade at 80% odds, meaning a simple trade here returns 25% in 5 days.

Latest on the Epstein Files Release: What We Know Now

As of today, March 3rd, it looks like we're getting more Epstein documents at some point, but there is nothing confirmed about anything dropping before March 7th. Attorney General Bondi keeps saying this "Phase 1" release is just the beginning and Americans will "get the full Epstein files" eventually, but she maintains a pretty vague idea about when exactly that will happen.

So about that "Phase 1" release from last week (February 27-28) - there was a ton of hype beforehand. Bondi went on Fox News saying the contents "will make you sick" and promised flight logs, names, all that juicy stuff. They even had this whole ceremony with conservative commentators posing at the White House holding binders labeled "The Epstein Files: Phase 1." But when people actually saw what was in there it was a huge letdown. The released files were around 200 pages with some flight logs from Epstein's private jet, a heavily redacted contacts list, and a completely blacked-out list of "masseuses." There was also this evidence list mentioning things they found at Epstein's properties like "one CD labelled 'girl pics nude book 4'" and various recording devices and massage tables. Pretty much everyone was disappointed - left, right, didn't matter. A lot of this stuff had already been made public during Ghislaine Maxwell's case or through other legal channels. Even the conservative commentators who did that White House photo op admitted it wasn't what they expected. Chad Prather said "we didn't receive the information we were hoping for," and Scott Presler called it "not a smoking gun."

Things got really interesting when tension arose between the DOJ and FBI. The day after the release, the DOJ accused the FBI of holding back "thousands of pages" of Epstein documents. Bondi wrote a strongly-worded letter to FBI Director Kash Patel demanding they hand everything over by the next morning. Pretty unusual to see two major agencies going at it like that in public.

Just yesterday, Bondi was on Fox News with Mark Levin still insisting more is coming: "New York City SDNY, they're sitting on thousands of pages of documents regarding Epstein. Thousands, thousands." She promised, "We will get everything. We will have it in our possession. We will redact it, of course, to protect grand jury information and confidential witnesses. But the American people have a right to know."

Will we see more files released?

Will we see anything before March 7th? Pretty unlikely in my opinion. There is clearly a lot going on behind the scenes here that the public are unaware of. There is a reason, whatever it may be, for the FBI holding these files back. They knew they would get flack for holding them back but they did it anyway. This tells us the chances of those extra files being released in the next five days is pretty miniscule. If the FBI does release them by Friday then what was the point of holding them back for an extra few days? It does nothing but damage their reputation. So again, I believe strongly that there are some behind the scenes reasons we are not seeing these files and likely won’t for some time. Plus, they need time to redact all that sensitive info and protect the identities of over 200 victims, which isn't quick work.

Remember, Epstein died by suicide in August 2019 while awaiting trial for trafficking teenage girls. His case gets so much attention because of all his connections to powerful people. A ton of records have already come out through various channels over the years, including that final batch of documents from Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit back in January 2024. Bondi's framing this whole thing as part of Trump's transparency initiatives, calling him "the most transparent president in our nation's history" and saying they'll also declassify documents about JFK and MLK Jr. To me, it seems like Bondi and the Trump admin rushed to get anything they could possibly get out and call it a victory for transparency, regardless of the contents of the files.

Bottom line: Bondi definitely seems committed to releasing more Epstein files soon, but there's no hard evidence that anything new will drop specifically between now and March 7th. The DOJ-FBI drama and all the necessary redactions mean the timeline for "Phase 2" is still up in the air. But according to Bondi, more is definitely coming... eventually.

Return: 1,000% - High-risk (resolved by Friday)

Welcome back to The Poly. Our last idea on Nvidia becoming the largest company in the world is still in play today, with earnings coming in above estimates last night. Unfortunately, we didn’t see the +10% price appreciation we needed to make the 23x return in after hours trading. We may see some action from retail traders today that may bring the company's market cap closer to Apple, but as we said on Tuesday this was more of a small fun gamble position.

Today’s trade is another low odds trade at 10%, but the reasons for this one are quite different. We’re going to take a look at the market for Kanye launching a crypto coin in February. This market is interesting for many reasons and was priced at 75% just a few days ago. Let’s dig into what makes this trade intriguing to us.

For the past two weeks Kanye has been having a meltdown on X, and it looks like we might soon be witnessing the launch of Kanye West’s long-anticipated crypto coin. With only tomorrow left in the current window and polymarket odds sitting at 10%, we are looking at the possibility of a 10x return if the coin goes live in the next two days. Let’s break down why Ye might release this coin, what it means for his brand, and what risks and rewards come with betting on this 48-hour event.

The $YZY Memecoin
Multiple reports indicate that Kanye West—now often referred to as Ye—has been teasing the launch of his very own cryptocurrency, tentatively named $YZY. This token is rumored to serve as the official currency on his website, where fans could use it to purchase Yeezy merchandise. Although Kanye has previously dismissed crypto projects—claiming, for example, that “coins prey on fans with hype”—recent cryptic posts on X suggest a change in stance. Sources have reported that Kanye hinted at an imminent launch, even stating that all other available tokens were “fake.”

Centralized Allocation & Concerns
One major point of skepticism surrounds the token’s distribution model. Rumors claim that if $YZY is launched, Kanye might retain as much as 70% of the total supply. The remaining percentage would allegedly be split—with around 10% set aside for liquidity and 20% for investors. This highly centralized distribution is a red flag in the crypto world, as it mirrors previous celebrity-backed tokens that experienced dramatic pump-and-dump cycles. High concentration in one party’s hands not only limits the token’s decentralization but can also lead to market manipulation, leaving ordinary investors exposed to substantial risk.

Account Control & Scam Fears
Adding another layer of controversy, there are persistent rumors suggesting that Kanye’s social media account on X may not be entirely under his control. Some insiders have speculated that Kanye may have sold or leased his account to a group linked with the meme coin community—most notably a group associated with the name Barkmeta—for around $17 million. Given Barkmeta’s history and previous involvement in dubious meme coin projects, this allegation has stoked fears that the promotion of $YZY might be part of a larger scam. Analysts have observed unusual changes in account activity and warned that if the account is being managed by third parties, any crypto promotion coming from it should be approached with extreme caution.

Platform and Blockchain Speculations

Early in the rumor mill, there were talks about Kanye launching his token on established blockchain platforms like Cardano. In fact, some reports even hinted at the possibility of him creating an entirely new blockchain tailored to his brand. However, these ideas were quickly squashed by prominent figures in the blockchain space. For example, Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson publicly dismissed any notion of Kanye launching a project on Cardano, emphasizing that serious blockchain projects require rigorous technical and operational standards—standards that celebrity ventures often struggle to meet. Other speculations included forking or adapting existing networks such as Solana or even leveraging the technology behind Dogecoin, but no definitive plans have emerged.

Controversial Branding

Perhaps the most sensational aspect of the rumors was the mention of a token with an extremely provocative name—“Swasticoin.” This name, laden with controversy, seems to align with Kanye’s long history of courting public outrage through provocative statements and imagery. While some believe this was nothing more than hyperbolic online banter or an ill-advised marketing stunt, it clearly reflects the chaotic nature of celebrity-driven crypto projects. The very idea of such a name raises significant questions about both the intent and the potential fallout, should the project ever materialize.

Polymarket Insider Trading

In addition to the speculative tokenomics and questionable account control, there is a large probability of insider trading on Polymarket in this specific market. We have noted the sudden appearance of numerous newly created accounts—accounts that have never placed any bets before, yet now hold tens of thousands of dollars solely on the outcome of Kanye launching a coin in February. We believe these accounts aren’t the work of casual bettors but rather the handiwork of insiders who are likely to be the same people orchestrating the takeover of Kanye’s social media presence. If these same players are behind the coin’s launch, it would be a strategic play to time the launch on Friday—the final day of February—when Polymarket prices will be at their lowest. This insider trading will allow them to profit not only from a potential surge in the coin’s value but also from betting on the coin's release on Polymarket.

Conclusion

Our analysis of this market points to a significant possibility of insider trading influencing the Polymarket odds. The sudden surge of newly created, high-stakes accounts betting on Kanye’s coin launch is a huge giveaway—these accounts are unlikely to be casual bettors. Instead, they appear to be strategically positioned by insiders who may have privileged information about the impending launch timing. This calculated move could allow them to capitalize on the low market prices expected on the final day of February, driving a massive upside when the coin goes live.

Given this context, I’m taking a small position on the yes side of this trade. Despite the inherent risks of betting on a celebrity-backed crypto project, the possibility of a 10x return makes this risk an attractive proposition—if these insider signals are correct, the reward far outweighs the downside. A modest allocation not only limits potential losses but also positions us to benefit significantly should the insiders’ strategy pay off.

Market: Largest company end of February?

Return: 1,000% - High-Risk (completed by Friday)

Nvidia vs. Apple: A High-Stakes Bet on a Market Underdog

In the fast-paced world of tech, the race for market supremacy is never dull. As we approach the end of February 2025, a bold yet high-risk wager has emerged on Polymarket: betting that Nvidia, despite current odds of just 10%, will surpass Apple to become the largest company by market capitalization. With Apple enjoying a dominant 90% probability and Nvidia trailing behind, this small, speculative position is admittedly more likely to lose than win. Despite this, I believe there is a greater than 10% chance that Nvidia’s earnings release on February 26th creates a catalyst for a large appreciation in the stock price that may not be priced in. Below, I delve into an in-depth analysis of this trade, examining market dynamics, earnings expectations, potential catalysts, and the inherent risks involved.

The Current Market Landscape

As of February 24, 2025, Apple stands as the titan of the tech world with a market capitalization of approximately $3.69 trillion. In comparison, Nvidia trails at around $3.29 trillion. This $400 billion gap is significant, and for Nvidia to overtake Apple by the end of February—a mere five trading days away—it would require an extraordinary market performance.

Calculations indicate that for Nvidia to close this gap, its stock price needs to increase by roughly 12.5%. Based on recent data, Apple’s share price is around $245.67, derived from its 15.02 billion shares outstanding, while Nvidia’s price sits at about $134.32 per share, given its 24.49 billion shares outstanding. To reach parity in market capitalization with Apple, Nvidia’s share price must climb to approximately $151.08. This steep increase in such a short period does indeed make this trade a long shot, but may still be underpriced on Polymarket.

The Earnings Catalyst: February 26, 2025

A critical element in this narrative is Nvidia's upcoming Q4 fiscal 2025 earnings release, scheduled for February 26, 2025. Analysts have projected revenue of $38.1 billion—exceeding the company’s previous guidance of $37.5 billion. Historically, Nvidia has demonstrated its ability to deliver significant post-earnings surges, sometimes rallying by up to 20% in a single day when results beat expectations.

The anticipated earnings release is seen as a potential catalyst that could trigger the necessary upward movement in Nvidia’s stock price. With strong performance indicators, such as a remarkable year-over-year increase in earnings per share and sustained demand in the AI chip sector, there is a tangible possibility that positive earnings news could ignite investor enthusiasm. However, it is precisely this catalyst that underpins the speculative nature of the bet.

Market Dynamics and Price Targets

Understanding the market dynamics at play is essential when evaluating this trade. Nvidia’s required 12.5% increase is not entirely unprecedented in the tech sector, and especially not in the recent boom of AI. On days when earnings reports are exceptionally strong, or when macroeconomic conditions align favorably, tech stocks can exhibit rapid gains. For example, previous instances of Nvidia’s earnings have led to dramatic stock price jumps, bolstering investor confidence and driving momentum.

That said, several factors temper these expectations:

• Investor Sentiment and Market Expectations:
  Market sentiment plays a crucial role in determining stock movements, especially in the short term. With Apple’s market dominance and no significant upcoming events slated for the Cupertino giant until April, investor confidence in Apple remains unshaken. The market, therefore, appears to be skeptical about Nvidia’s ability to close the $400 billion gap swiftly, as evidenced by the low 10% odds.

• Short-Term Volatility:
  The period following an earnings release is often marked by heightened volatility. Sudden shifts in broader market trends, or global economic news can quickly compound any gains made in the wake of positive earnings.

• Consensus Price Targets:
  Analyst consensus price targets for Nvidia have been bullish in the long term, with some forecasts placing the company’s share price as high as $175. This long-term optimism, however, does not directly translate into short-term gains. The market’s skepticism is rooted in the fact that while long-term prospects are strong, the near-term path is fraught with uncertainties. These uncertainties may be clarified in the earnings call on Wednesday which could result in a large appreciation in the stock price.

Evaluating the Opportunity: A Positive Outlook

Nvidia's upcoming earnings release presents a unique opportunity for investors to capitalize on a potential short-term price appreciation. With expectations of a robust performance, there are several compelling reasons to believe that Nvidia could experience significant upward momentum following its earnings report.

Catalyst for Growth
With revenue forecasts projected at $38.1 billion—surpassing prior guidance—this earnings report has the potential to ignite investor enthusiasm. Historical trends suggest that a strong earnings beat can result in rapid price appreciations, with Nvidia’s stock having surged by as much as 20% on previous occasions. Such a performance could easily set the stage for the approximately 12.5% increase needed to close the gap with Apple’s market capitalization.

Strong Fundamentals and Market Leadership
Nvidia's position as a leader in the AI chip market is underpinned by robust fundamentals and a consistent track record of innovation. Its state-of-the-art products, including the cutting-edge Blackwell GPUs, continue to drive demand among major technology companies like Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon. This leadership in a fast-growing sector not only supports the company's long-term growth prospects but also boosts short-term investor confidence. The strong fundamentals suggest that even a modest beat in earnings could result in a significant and rapid upward movement in stock price.

Investor Confidence and Positive Sentiment
Market sentiment surrounding Nvidia has been increasingly positive in anticipation of the upcoming earnings report. Analysts and investors alike are optimistic about the company’s ability to outperform expectations. This confidence is reflected in the possibility of a quick and substantial price increase following the release, as a beat on revenue and earnings per share could trigger a wave of buying. Positive sentiment, combined with the company’s impressive performance history, makes a compelling case for a potential short-term rally.

Opportunities for Rapid Upside
In the realm of short-term trading, few opportunities are as exciting as a catalyst that can drive a rapid and sustained rally. A successful earnings release could propel Nvidia’s stock into a new trajectory, offering traders a chance to realize swift gains. The focused window following the earnings—despite being short—can lead to a concentrated period of increased trading activity, providing an optimal environment for capturing the upward swing. This rapid potential for upside is especially attractive to those looking to capitalize on short-term market movements with a small, calculated position.

The anticipated earnings report is more than just a routine quarterly update—it is a significant opportunity for Nvidia to showcase its growth potential and market leadership. With strong revenue forecasts, innovative product offerings, and positive investor sentiment, the stage is set for Nvidia to potentially achieve a substantial post-earnings rally. For traders on Polymarket, this represents a bold and exciting opportunity to bet on a transformative moment that could redefine Nvidia's market position.

Strategic Considerations for Polymarket Traders

For those considering this trade on Polymarket, several strategic points deserve attention:

• Monitoring Earnings Closely:
  The earnings release on February 26 is the linchpin of this strategy. Traders should be prepared to act quickly based on the news. A positive earnings surprise could lead to rapid price action, but any disappointment might solidify Apple’s dominance.

• Risk Management:
  Given that this is a small, speculative trade, it is essential to manage risk carefully. Position sizing should reflect the low probability of success—only 10% odds—and traders should be prepared for a total loss on this portion of their portfolio as it is still a less than probable outcome.

• Short-Term Market Trends:
  In the days immediately following the earnings release, keeping an eye on broader market trends is crucial. External economic factors or unexpected global events could exacerbate volatility, influencing the trade’s outcome.

Conclusion: An Exciting Opportunity in a Dynamic Market

Betting on Nvidia to overtake Apple as the largest company by market cap by the end of February 2025 represents an opportunity to trade a high-risk high-return market. This trade embodies the transformative power of a blockbuster earnings release, where strong Q4 fiscal results can set the stage for rapid, impressive growth. Nvidia’s forecasted revenue of $38.1 billion and its history of dynamic post-earnings surges underscore the exciting potential for a significant upward movement in its stock price. If you are trading this market, I recommend keeping your size small, as this is still a high-risk trade.

The narrative surrounding Nvidia is one of innovation and leadership. As a front-runner in the AI chip market, Nvidia’s robust fundamentals and cutting-edge product lineup—epitomized by its revolutionary Blackwell GPUs—continue to drive widespread investor enthusiasm. This optimism is further fueled by strong market sentiment and the anticipation of a performance that not only meets but exceeds expectations, creating a powerful catalyst for rapid stock price appreciation.

In recent months, discussions about the transparency of the United States’ gold reserves have been reignited, with high-profile figures like Elon Musk weighing in on the need for an official audit of Fort Knox. Musk, who leads the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has even floated the idea of a live video walkthrough of the depository to verify its holdings. However, despite the growing clamor for transparency, a closer look at DOGE’s structure and mission reveals that an audit of Fort Knox before May is highly improbable.

A Legacy of Security: The Fort Knox Enigma

Fort Knox, officially known as the United States Bullion Depository, is not just a storage facility—it’s a symbol of national security and financial stability. Established in 1936 following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102, Fort Knox was designed to protect the nation’s gold reserves during a turbulent era. Over time, it has become synonymous with impenetrability. With a vault constructed from concrete-lined granite and reinforced with steel, the facility boasts a door weighing over 20 tons, backed by armed guards, barbed wire, electric fences, and even minefields. These formidable security measures are designed to protect the estimated 147.3 million troy ounces of gold (roughly 4,583 metric tons), which account for about 56% of the U.S. Treasury’s total reserves. Despite its storied history and robust defenses, Fort Knox has not undergone a full audit since 1953, a gap that has fueled persistent debates and conspiracy theories about the actual status of its gold holdings.

Enter DOGE: A Mission Focused on Efficiency

The creation of DOGE was heralded as a transformative step towards curbing wasteful government spending and enhancing operational efficiency. At the helm of this initiative is Elon Musk, whose forward-thinking approach and penchant for challenging established norms have captured public attention. However, while DOGE’s mission is ambitious, its resources tell a different story. With only 30 employees on board, DOGE is operating with a lean team that is primarily focused on streamlining government processes and eliminating inefficiencies rather than undertaking massive, resource-intensive projects.

DOGE’s core mandate centers on identifying and cutting unnecessary expenditures, optimizing bureaucratic processes, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are put to effective use. In this context, while an audit of Fort Knox might seem like a high-profile move towards greater transparency, it is not necessarily aligned with the department’s primary objectives. Given the limited manpower and the specialized nature of an audit of such a heavily fortified and sensitive facility, it is clear that DOGE’s current priorities lie elsewhere.

The Audit Debate: Transparency vs. Practicality

Calls for a Fort Knox audit have been fueled by decades of speculation and the conspicuous absence of recent comprehensive checks. Public figures and watchdog groups have long argued that the lack of a thorough audit undermines public trust and raises questions about the integrity of the nation’s gold reserves. In 1974 and again in 2017, limited civilian inspections were conducted to verify the holdings, yet many critics maintain that these measures fall short of what is needed for true transparency. Elon Musk’s recent comments have added further momentum to this debate. By suggesting that a live video walkthrough could reveal the state of Fort Knox’s gold, Musk tapped into a deep-seated public desire for accountability. However, even as these discussions capture headlines and spark social media debates, the practical challenges of such an audit remain daunting. Fort Knox’s security protocols are not just robust—they are designed to deter any form of unauthorized inspection. The sheer physical and logistical hurdles involved in accessing the vault, coupled with the need to coordinate with multiple government agencies, mean that an audit is a task that requires far more than a handful of employees and a few innovative ideas.

A Sign of Insecurity: The Implications of Allowing Access

Allowing DOGE and Elon Musk inside Fort Knox would be unprecedented, carrying potent symbolic implications. In a country that prides itself on robust national security, granting such access would be perceived as an admission of vulnerability. It would imply that the existing security apparatus is either compromised or insufficiently robust to deter external scrutiny. This move could set off a cascade of concerns about the overall state of U.S. security, both domestically and on the global stage. In essence, it would undermine the image of invincibility that Fort Knox has long projected, suggesting that even the most fortified institutions are not immune to internal challenges and external pressures.

Why an Audit Before May Is Improbable

Several key factors contribute to the skepticism that DOGE could realistically complete an audit of Fort Knox before May:

1. Limited Manpower: DOGE’s staff count of 30 employees underscores the scale of the challenge. Conducting an audit of a facility as vast and secure as Fort Knox would require a specialized team with expertise in high-security operations, forensic accounting, and gold valuation. The current team’s primary focus on government efficiency initiatives leaves little room for diverting attention to such a resource-intensive project.

2. Complex Security Measures: Fort Knox’s design and security features are engineered to be virtually impenetrable. The physical structure of the vault, reinforced by advanced security systems including a 20-ton door and extensive perimeter defenses, means that any audit would necessitate not only unprecedented access but also rigorous coordination with military and security personnel. Given these challenges, the timeline required for a proper audit would extend well beyond a few months.

3. Bureaucratic Hurdles: An audit of Fort Knox is not merely a technical exercise; it involves navigating a labyrinth of bureaucratic procedures and regulatory protocols. Coordination with the U.S. Treasury, the Department of Defense, and other government bodies is essential. In an environment where efficiency is paramount, the time-consuming process of obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals further diminishes the likelihood of a swift audit.

4. Alignment with DOGE’s Priorities: DOGE’s mission is squarely aimed at eliminating wasteful spending and improving operational efficiency. While the audit of Fort Knox might align with broader calls for transparency, it is not a project that directly contributes to the department’s core objectives. As such, the allocation of limited resources to this endeavor is unlikely to be prioritized over more immediate and impactful efficiency reforms.

The Ironclad Barrier: Access Denied in a Crisis

Adding to the complexity of the situation is the scenario in which Fort Knox might be found to be missing significant gold reserves. If such a discrepancy were ever confirmed, the response from the depository would be unequivocal and immediate. Fort Knox’s legendary security is predicated on absolute trust and the assurance of its gold holdings. In the unlikely event that gold is found to be missing, the facility would undoubtedly tighten its already formidable access protocols. Under such circumstances, not even high-profile entities like DOGE—or its charismatic leader, Elon Musk—would be granted access. The depository’s strict policies, designed to protect against internal and external breaches, would leave no room for any form of unauthorized inspection. This ironclad barrier underscores a fundamental principle: a breach in trust would only reinforce the fortress mentality, ensuring that only a very limited, government-sanctioned cohort could ever set foot inside its walls.

Balancing Ambition with Reality

While the idea of a live audit of Fort Knox is tantalizing from a transparency standpoint, it is essential to balance ambition with practicality. DOGE’s current structure, with its modest team and specific focus on efficiency, does not lend itself to the execution of a large-scale, high-security audit on such short notice. The prospect of auditing Fort Knox before May, while capturing public imagination, is more symbolic than feasible under the present circumstances.

The reality is that achieving meaningful government efficiency often involves incremental steps rather than headline-grabbing maneuvers. DOGE’s approach has been to streamline processes and eliminate unnecessary layers of bureaucracy—a strategy that, while transformative in its own right, does not easily translate to the complexities of auditing a facility that is as unique and secure as Fort Knox.

Looking Ahead: What Could Change?

The current situation does not preclude the possibility of a Fort Knox audit in the future. As DOGE continues to refine its operational framework and potentially expand its team, there may come a time when such an undertaking becomes viable. Moreover, technological advancements and innovative audit methodologies could eventually provide a means to conduct remote or semi-automated inspections, reducing the need for a large on-site team. However, even with these potential developments, any significant audit of Fort Knox will require careful planning, substantial resources, and a collaborative effort among multiple government agencies. In the near term, the focus is likely to remain on projects that promise immediate improvements in efficiency and cost savings, rather than on expansive audits that could divert attention and resources from core initiatives.

Conclusion

The push for transparency in government operations is both necessary and commendable. Yet, in the case of a proposed Fort Knox audit, the practical challenges cannot be overlooked. DOGE, under the leadership of Elon Musk, represents a bold new approach to government efficiency—but its limited staff of 30 employees and its focus on streamlining operations make it highly unlikely that the department will undertake a full-scale audit of Fort Knox before May.

While the idea of shining a light on one of America’s most secretive and secure facilities is undoubtedly appealing, the reality is that meaningful change requires more than just visionary ideas; it demands the allocation of sufficient resources and a realistic assessment of what can be achieved within given time constraints. For now, the audit of Fort Knox remains a tantalizing prospect—a symbol of transparency and accountability that, at least in the short term, will have to wait for a time when DOGE’s capabilities are more fully realized.

As discussions continue and public interest in government transparency grows, it will be important for stakeholders to remain grounded in the practical realities of executing such complex projects. In the meantime, DOGE will likely continue to focus on its mission of achieving government efficiency through targeted, manageable reforms that offer immediate benefits without overextending its limited resources.

Stay tuned for further updates as developments unfold, and join the conversation about how best to balance ambitious ideals with the practical constraints of governance in today’s complex and ever-changing world.

Disclaimer & Risk Warning: this newsletter is intended for information and entertainment purposes only. Predictions are based solely on our personal opinions and do not represent recommendations to place any specific trade or bet. Prediction markets are highly risky and most prediction market participants lose money over time. The Poly Newsletter accepts no responsibility for any financial loss or decision. We strive to provide accurate analysis but mistakes and errors do occur. No warranty is made to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information provided. The information in the publication may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information and no liability shall be accepted for any loss.