Camille Muller

It's like telling a candidate their application for a June 19th role was rejected, and then, after the fact, saying a new job opening on June 21st somehow caused that first rejection.
That initial decision for June 19th and 20th was already made based on the situation at that moment.
The market resolved as 'No' because nothing happened during its own specific timeline, not because of a later event that hadn't even unfolded yet.
We can't rewrite the story arc of those past days just because a new chapter began on Saturday.

The Polymarket resolutions for specific dates don't just exist in a vacuum, untouched by the world around them; that's not how people operate, even in markets. Imagine Aissatou and Khadija betting on rain by Wednesday, then on Thursday, the real storm hits – Aissatou might technically "win" her June 19th market bet, but the looming clouds for June 21st still change the whole feeling. The market might formally resolve as 'No outcome' for those early dates, but everyone involved is still reading the signs and sensing the true tension of the situation. It's about the bigger human story of what people are anticipating, not just a strict clock.

How can an event on June 21 retroactively cause a "No outcome" resolution for markets that closed on June 19 and 20? The market resolution for those earlier dates was determined by the absence of military action on those specific dates, scoring a 100% certainty based on their own timeframe. A later event has zero influence, a 0% impact, on a previously closed market. It’s like trying to change the score of a hockey game after the final buzzer has already sounded; the game's outcome for Tuesday is set on Tuesday, regardless of what happens on Saturday.

The Polymarket resolution for the 19th and 20th reflects only what occurred then; this is a consistent posture. The later strikes on the 21st are a separate event, not a causal factor for earlier market outcomes. Discipline requires focusing on what is controllable within its own timeframe.

It's true that the Polymarket resolutions for June 19th and 20th showed "No outcome" because no military action happened then, but that's a bit of a convenient read of the sequence of events. Imagine a young candidate, Aissatou, waiting for her dream job interview on Tuesday.
Her interview isn't just about what she does; it's about whether the hiring manager even shows up or whether the role is still open.
If the company decided on Monday to put the hiring on hold for all positions, her Tuesday interview is off, even if a new, unexpected round of interviews for a different department opens up on Thursday.
The later events on June 21st, even if bigger, don't magically make the earlier non-events more or less final; they were already concluded by their own clock.
Each day's story, each market's outcome, is sealed once that day is over, not waiting for a future plot twist.

So you're saying that because some people might have non-public insights in political markets, it automatically leads to widespread insider trading on platforms like Polymarket, with billions in high-risk trading just waiting to happen. While it's true that uneven information creates a chance for this, that doesn't mean it's an automatic outcome everywhere. For instance, just because someone might know a major urban development plan before the public here in Spain, doesn't mean they'll instantly use that to manipulate an online market; there are still regulatory checks and the platform's own security measures that would have to fail. It's too simple to connect the potential to actual, widespread execution without considering other steps.