Polymarket上美伊在8月31日前实现“两周停火”概率暂报51%，单周下跌3%
Related
Polymarket has a new post titled "Will the US government revoke public access to another major AI model?"
According to PPP forecasting market monitoring, Polymarket has added a new question: "Will the US government revoke public access to another major AI model?", with a current probability of 33%. The settlement rules are as follows: If the US federal government passes relevant legislation, issues an executive order, implements export controls, or takes any other measures that substantially restrict public access to a major AI model by the end of 2026, the market result will be "Yes". Otherwise, the market result will be "No". A "qualifying action" refers to a formal measure taken by the US government that is equivalent to a complete ban on public access to an AI model within the US. Furthermore, the settlement rules emphasize that regardless of the true purpose or nominal goal of the action, if an action actually prevents the public from accessing the model within the US—for example, prohibiting the model from being provided to foreign citizens or governments—it qualifies as long as the general public cannot access the model through regular channels within the US. Simply excluding access to the model from a single channel is insufficient. Removals that fall under public access rights and are not caused by any formal action by the US government are not eligible. "Mainstream AI models" refer to flagship, general-purpose large language models or multimodal foundational models developed by one of the following companies: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google (including Google DeepMind), Meta, xAI, Microsoft, Amazon, Mistral AI, DeepSeek, Alibaba, ByteDance, Moonshot AI, and Zhipu AI (Z.ai). Models designed for specific tasks, or those that are outdated and used only for research or preview purposes, do not meet this criterion. This action can target a single model or a group of models, as long as at least one significant AI model is consequently banned from public access within the United States. Temporarily banning public access to a model qualifies as this action. However, if an action has been implemented or a relevant resolution has been issued, but the model remains publicly accessible until the resolution takes effect, then this action does not qualify as this action. Information for this market comes from official information and announcements from the US government and relevant AI companies. However, consensus may also be formed by referring to reliable reports. Odaily Seer continuously focuses on the prediction market, seeing changes before pricing.
On Polymarket, the probability of "BLG achieving a 'Golden Road' (Grand Slam)" has risen to 21%, an 8% increase in the last 24 hours.
According to PPP's market prediction tool, the League of Legends MSI (Mid-Season Invitational) World Championship has officially begun. The probability of BLG achieving a "Golden Road (Grand Slam)" event on Polymarket is currently reported at 21%, up 8% in the last 24 hours. In today's MSI match, BLG defeated LCK team T1 3-2, advancing to the upper bracket of the MSI playoffs. Previously, BLG won the 2026 League of Legends Global Vanguard. The event is judged as "yes" if BLG completes the "Golden Road" this year. This means BLG must win all major League of Legends esports events by 2026. In other words, the team's players need to win all regional tournaments and participate in all three major international tournaments: the Vanguard, MSI, and Worlds. This information will likely come from official League of Legends esports websites, but reliable reports such as those on Liquipedia can also be consulted. Odaily Seer continuously focuses on the prediction market, seeing changes before pricing.
Polymarket has listed a new article: "Tesla will launch Robotaxi service in California by December 31st."
PPP's market prediction tool shows that Polymarket has added a new prediction: "Tesla will officially launch its robotaxi service in California by December 31, 2026." If Tesla officially launches its autonomous taxi service, requiring no continuous human driver intervention, in California by the end of 2026, the prediction is "Yes"; otherwise, it's "No." Tesla continues to advance its autonomous driving and robotaxi deployments, but progress varies significantly by region. Currently, it is conducting more aggressive driverless mobility testing and planning in some parts of the US (such as Texas), while in California, it remains primarily constrained by a stricter regulatory system. California's DMV and CPUC have established a multi-stage approval process for commercial autonomous driving operations, involving multiple hurdles such as road test data, remote safety driver requirements, and commercial passenger transport permits. Currently, Tesla in California primarily operates with its supervised autopilot function (FSD) and has not yet obtained a commercial robotaxi license allowing fully driverless operation. In contrast, its "Cybercab" and Robotaxi commercialization path is widely seen as prioritizing deployment in regions with more relaxed regulations, and progress in California remains highly uncertain. Odaily Seer continues to monitor the prediction market, anticipating changes before pricing.
A major Polymarket trader went from a profit of $5.6 million to a loss in just 13 days.
PANews reported on July 7th that, according to Onchain Lens, Polymarket trader "1two1two" turned a profit of approximately $5.6 million into a loss of approximately $103,000 in 13 days. His account, created in June of this year, currently has a win rate of approximately 48.3% (14/29) and a cumulative trading volume of approximately $21.99 million. His largest losing trades include: Portugal vs. Spain (over 2.5 goals) with a loss of approximately $3.06 million, Ivory Coast vs. Norway (No) with a loss of approximately $2.64 million, and Brazil vs. Norway (Draw Yes) with a loss of approximately $748,000. His largest single winning trade was approximately $3.59 million, which was still insufficient to maintain the overall account profitability.
Polymarket sued over dispute over Strategy's sale of a Bitcoin prediction market.
According to Mars Finance, on July 7th, two plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Polymarket, accusing it of breach of contract and deceptive conduct in a prediction market related to whether Strategy would sell Bitcoin by the end of May. According to the complaint filed on July 3rd in the New York State Supreme Court, plaintiffs William Wood and Thomas Bush named Polymarket, its CEO Shayne Coplan, Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber, and other related entities and individuals as defendants. The complaint alleges that the two plaintiffs held a "Yes" position in a binary prediction market that asked whether Strategy would sell any Bitcoin holdings by May 31st. According to Strategy's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company did sell 32 Bitcoins (BTC) between May 26th and 31st. However, the plaintiffs point out that Polymarket ultimately ruled the market "No." They stated that the platform added a clarification before settlement, effectively changing the criterion from "whether the sale was completed before May 31st" to "whether the sale was publicly confirmed before May 31st." Due to this change in criteria, although Strategy had sold Bitcoin within the deadline, the prediction market was ultimately ruled "no" on June 3rd via a UMA vote (the mechanism Polymarket uses to adjudicate disputed markets).
Two traders sue Polymarket over disputed market settlement results.
According to Foresight News , The Block reports that William Wood and Thomas Bush are suing Polymarket over a prediction market that predicted "no" regarding whether Strategy would sell its tokens before May 31. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff stated that Strategy clearly stated in its 8-K filing that the company sold 32 bitcoins between May 26 and 31, but Polymarket added a rule clause requiring Strategy to publicly confirm this by May 31. The plaintiffs allege that Polymarket altered the market terms after the transaction was resolved, violating the platform's core commitment to rules-based, objective, and fair dealing. They are demanding that Polymarket compensate the plaintiffs for their profits if the market outcome had been "yes," as well as litigation costs.