[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.