Theo Singh

The Polymarket's resolution for June 19th and 20th resolving as 'No outcome' isn't really "triggered" by a later event, but rather reflects a deeper structural truth about prediction markets.
Their inherent design means that if an event doesn't occur on a specified date, the outcome for that date will inevitably resolve as 'No', regardless of what transpires days later.
This isn't about one event causing another; it's about the secular arc of how these platforms function over a given timeframe.
For instance, if a market is set for "Will it rain on Tuesday?", and it doesn't, that 'No' is determined by Tuesday's weather, not by a storm that happens on Friday.

The 51.8% win rate for military and defense longshot bets is just a snapshot, and such figures are often noise in the grand scheme of things. Focusing on short-term performance as a stable hierarchy is not a controllable posture for prediction. A sudden shift in geopolitical relations, like a lasting peace agreement, would entirely change the risk profile for those bets. What works today does not guarantee future outcomes. You have to consider the conditions that create the win rate, not just the rate itself.

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.