[ajross]

POTUS literally, literally announced that the US had control over all (!) of Venezuela.

Now, sure, that's kind of a lie. But (ahem) By The Definition of The Bet, actual control is not required. Only a military offensive intended to establish control. What purer definition of intent can you have than the decisionmaker's literal statement? QED.

No, this is cheating. Now, sure, the bets placed seemed very likely to be fraudulent. Which is cheating too. But there's not "technically" here. Polymarket is playing games with its bets. And that's fraud, even if it's got company.

[lxgr]

Polymarket is not a broker, counterparty, or even resolver, so the only thing they can arguably be criticized for is hosting a market without a sufficiently clear definition of "invasion".

[ajross]

How can they not be a "broker" when they handled the transaction?! How can they not be a "resolver" when they're the ones refusing to pay based on their own determination?

Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of (please cite) which does not apply here?

With all respect, that's 100% bonkers.

[lxgr]

They don't handle transactions. It's a blockchain-based platform that they design and operate, but part of that design is that they don't hold money themselves, nor are they the arbiter to any of the markets hosted on their platform.

> Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of (please cite) which does not apply here?

No idea what a better definition of "invasion" could have been, but the only one that's relevant for the resolution is that listed on the market description on Polymarket (which many traders don't even read, but that's a different story).

[cyanydeez]

There is an arbiter tho. That's the point of the article. Unless you tell us who inputs the bits for a bet, you're just spewing chatgpt bable.

Someone flips the bits to the bet.

[hyperhello]

This argument seems to be about the real meaning of words versus their overloaded legal analogues. I can’t imagine Venezuela’s military kidnapping Trump, then saying they would run the United States now, being parsed like this.

[lxgr]

That's not my point at all. I'm only saying that your criticism and claims of fraud are probably directed at the wrong entity.

[jcranmer]

The current POTUS is not a credible source.

[NewJazz]

On the intent of the US administration?

[cyanydeez]

Yeah, actually. He's basically a spokesperson. A non credible one. Someone like Stephen Miller is more credible.

[margalabargala]

Obviously.

The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US Government's goals. The actual statements made may be true or false.

If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people to think that Y was the reason X was done.

That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant here, this is true for every President. They make statements in service of their agenda, not in service of the truth.

[bluegatty]

We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot.

Secondly, even if argument could be that 'some other, more credible president would lie' - this actually does not hold up, because nobody could operate in those terms.

The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Except in rare cases.

"He tells people what to do on a whim" and "has longstanding personal beefs and gripes" - that's it.

We don't know what he's going to wake up and tweet tomorrow so all we have are his statements.

Also, I think we give way to much credit to this notion of '4d chess' - he lies in the moment because he can get away with it, not out of some well plotted deception. He's not servicing some complicated scheme - just his gut.

He'll say something else the next day, but for that moment, what he says is policy.

[curt15]

>We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has.

* "Statements", not "statement". Past statements can be used to assess the credibility of more recent ones.

* Actions speak louder than words. Pardoning the king of cocaine trafficking demonstrates just how seriously the administration is trying to counter drug trafficking.

[margalabargala]

> We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot.

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. "He makes things up, therefore we have to take the things he says as credible"?

The President is not an oracle of truth, nor are his words the most accurate representation we have on the intentions of US government actions.

Let's say he had said directly, "The January 3rd operation in Venezuela was a best-effort attempt by the US to take control over Venezuela".

Now let's say he had instead said "The January 3rd operation in Venezuela was a best-effort attempt by the US to take control over Madagascar".

You would genuinely, truly believe that in that moment, the capture of Maduro from Venezuela was the most effective thing the US government could do to take control of Madagascar?

[bluegatty]

No, the position that POTUS statements can't be taken as valid are actually 'nonsense' - it's just the opposite.

The presidents statements are the legitimate statements of the State of the United States of America, it has nothing to do with what you or I think about 'Madagascar'.

He is POTUS, his words are nominally and pragmatically state policy.

If he makes a declaration of 'use of force' against another it should be taken at face value.

This would be true if were only a nominal figurehead, leaving policy to others, but he's not, he has material power and wields it.

Given the construction of the balance of power - 'He is America' at least for the time being.

[machomaster]

> We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has.

You are welcome to believe everything that President Putin is saying about anything, including Ukraine.

That's a profoundly absurd statement. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, especially with a trackrecord of an "authority" lying.

If the President's words are the truth, what to do with the statements in which he contradicts himself? What about situations in which 2 presidents disagree?

>The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it.

Official, perhaps most of the time. Truthful, definitely not.

What's up with the inability to separate "opinions/statements" vs. "facts/truth"?..

[bluegatty]

I don't believe anything he says.

But his statements are the position of the US government aka the most 'truthful' representation of US policy.

I'm responding to the notion that because he lies and misrepresents, his statements don't count as representative somehow, which is not true.

If he says 'military force is on the table' for acquiring Greenland, we should assume he means to invade if wants.

[NewJazz]

Well, then the polymarket bet was written stupidly because you can argue all day about intent if you refuse to accept the man's words.

[actionfromafar]

He may also claim Venezuela is controlled by aliens. AFAIK the bet was not about what deranged stuff POTUS might express?

[zahlman]

> The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.

There are other credible sources whose consensus could be checked.

[NewJazz]

What credible source exists for the intent of this administration? You can have all the IR acumen in the world, but you won't be able to get into the head of this president.

[margalabargala]

The bet wasn't "will President Trump claim to have invaded Venezuela", it was whether the US would actually do it.

Your understanding of the relationship between the truth and the words being spoken by POTUS are the only discontinuity here. Update that expectation and everything makes sense.

[NewJazz]

The US did launch a military offensive in Venezuela, albeit briefly. That is not in question. What is in question is the intent, which how do you know intent without accepting the publicly stated intent of the commander in chief?

The bet was, specifically:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

[devwastaken]

Venezuala government calls it an invasion. U.S left with the evidence, do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala or the elected president of the U.S?

[lxgr]

It seems like it would be common sense to trust neither party to the conflict to arbitrate such markets. That’s why e.g. for presidential election, the criterion is usually a quorum of different news outlets and not either party running.

[Phelinofist]

> do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala or the fascist president of the U.S?

FTFY

[zahlman]

It's not as if the site can steal money this way. Either something else happens before the 31st that does meet their definition, or else they have to pay out the "no" side.

[Bombthecat]

Is the potus a credible source, ( as per definition of the bet)

[nabla9]

That's not what it says.

[reshlo]

Isn’t it?

> This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

[nabla9]

The US attack had no intent to control territory. It was to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.

1. Attack intent to control did not happen.

2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not happen.

[tremon]

Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.

The way I read it, the second paragraph serves as the definition of territory ("any portion of Venezuela"), not as a condition for resolving the bet. The invasion doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to have the intent you specified in 1.

...which makes the entire bet like quicksand, because it relies on the public statements from a regime known for its "inaccurate" messaging.

The more interesting question for rules lawyers is whether the president itself classifies as "any portion of Venezuela" -- the claim doesn't explicitly limit itself to only geographical portions.

[monocasa]

Kidnapping the president of a country is very clear intent to exert control over a country.

The second "de facto" part is about the preconditions of the bet, to define what is Venezuela versus the US.

[prmoustache]

> Kidnapping the president of a country is very clear intent to exert control over a country.

I personnally view it more as a marketing stunt.

[monocasa]

Maybe in the same way Hiroshima was.

[SllX]

There is nothing both public and credible to substantiate the claim by the POTUS.

It’s possible we have de facto control of the regime through some backroom that only the Trump Administration knows about, but that’s just speculative on my part. We don’t know this is actually the case, and thus far there hasn’t been anything to substantiate the existence of such a thing.

So we’re at at a point where if put on the spot, gun to my head, I had to answer whether the United States controls the Government of Venezuela in any meaningful way, I would have to say “No” despite what Trump himself said. This is subject to change, pending further evidence made available to the American people.

[reshlo]

It doesn’t matter whether the US actually has control, only that the military action was taken with intent to establish control.

>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

[SllX]

What the military actually did was a raid which captured Maduro and his wife, and likely took out some of Venezuela’s anti-air capabilities—for all the good they did them—in the process. As far as we know, that was the intent. Actually establishing control is an occupational effort.

I see your argument, and I think it is even defensible but I think it falls short. An actual resolution to this question may require a judge to weigh in on the contract.

[bluegatty]

"Actually establishing control is an occupational effort."

Not quite.

They're trying to establish control by threatening to kill or imprison the leaders and by blockade.

Venezuela apparently handed over a lot of oil, it seems like they've been able to do something.

That said - we don't really know how much 'control' that is.

If I were Polymarket, I wouldn't say that the US has control either, but, it's entirely plausible.

We'll see.

This could go the way of DOGE or the Trade War aka just a trailing mess of ongoing concerns that people forget about, though to play my own devil's advocate, ICE is consistently ramping up.

[NewJazz]

Rubio literally said that the US could control Venezuela via the leverage they have.

[tremon]

They have a tape of Maduro blowing Bubba?

[SllX]

I understand that he made that claim, but until we see something that effectively substantiates that claim, it’s just words. Right now Maduro is in custody and being tried for the charges, but the regime he built is still in place, and as far as we know, not feeling any warm feelings about cooperating with us.

Now realistically no one in that regime is any safer than Maduro was, but it’s also a possibility they resist and carry on without Maduro. It’s only been since Saturday. I’m not saying there’s no world where Trump & Rubio are correct today or when they said it over the weekend, I’m saying that there is no public information substantiating those claims. Near as I can tell, it’s a “listen to us or else” kinda deal, which could be enough, but then we would see the effects of that through cooperation with the Trump Administration.

[reshlo]

The claim doesn’t need to be substantiated, because it doesn’t matter whether they actually will control Venezuela, it only matters that it was their intent to do so, which Rubio and Trump have both admitted.

[NewJazz]

Words that prove intent.

[hunterpayne]

The Chavez Museum was also destroyed...but no it wasn't an invasion. It didn't control land which is the definition in this case. The blockade provides de facto control which is what Trump is referring to.

[NewJazz]

The bet never used the phrase invasion fwiw.

[watwut]

Why is this downvoted? The argument is solid.

USA did not achieved control, but its leadership apparently think they have it.

[monocasa]

The bet doesn't specify that the US achieves control over Venezuela, only that they invaded with the intent to exert control over Venezuela.

[lxgr]

Because it's blaming Polymarket for something not within its control, which is imprecise. TFA makes the same mistake, fwiw.

[cubefox]

That's a minor flaw but the comment seems mostly correct.

[JKCalhoun]

It's almost like they were not going to pay up regardless.

Might as well have bet "doll hairs"…

[lxgr]

They are paying up, just for the "no" outcome.

[hn_acc1]

They ARE, or INTEND to? It's not Jan 31, 2026 yet, so, AFAICT, only the "Yes" option can be short-circuited if it occurs. They can't pay the "No" side until Feb 1, 2026, right?

[lxgr]

Good point, so for completeness: They'll pay out either "Yes" or "No", but definitely not nobody or themselves (except if they're also "Yes" or "No" holders).

[lenerdenator]

Depends on what you mean by "achieved control".

Is it having heavy influence over through proxies? You can't just snatch a guy like Maduro out of a country without some local help. Help that would presumably be aligned with you on goals.

Or is it setting up a complete government like in Iraq, postwar Germany/Japan, etc.?

[WheatMillington]

Where are you getting "achieved" from? The wager only requires that the USA INTENDED to seize control.

[watwut]

Yes, it is clear there was local help. Someone who had a lot to gain, it could even be someone from government looking for promotion or seeing maduro as a threat, including the new president herself. That does not imply control over Venezuela. Nor alignment with American goals.

I mean, official American goals are "taking oil and getting money from it, putting it to offshore account". There is no "alignment on goals" possible, but there is a space for corruption and pressure. Venezuela is highly corrupt country after all.

> Or is it setting up a complete government like in Iraq, postwar Germany/Japan, etc.?

That would require actual invasion and actual control over land - military on the ground. Soldiers in high numbers, patrolling streets and shooting it out with militias. There is nothing of the sort going on. Besides, Iraq was failure.

Germany was literally defeated and destroyed after the war. Fight capable men were already killed in large numbers and Germans themselves seen themselves as losers of that war. And comfortably, their ideology of "might is right" meant that once they were destroyed they accepted to loss.

Trump and Vance may be able to peer it with militias, as another gang competing with local gangs, but they cant build equivalent of post WWII Germany. Because both sides are different - Venezuela is not defeated, there is no American military in there and American ideology is closer to that of past Germany then that of post WWII America.