Arii

I agree with you. I think the most important piece of evidence was actually Trump's tweet which framed it as part of his effort to end the war. Trump's statement was not immaterial; in fact, it's the most important piece of the puzzle. It was directly referenced by both sides in subsequent communications. Trump's statement also makes clear that the agreed terms are a suspension of ALL kinetic activity for three days. This is exactly what a ceasefire involves. The humanitarian prisoner exchange was clearly a supplement. We've had dozens of prisoner exchanges without ceasefires. When you adjudicate rule disputes, it's very important to not insert yourself between your question and the reality-based answer. This is the cardinal sin again and again, and the one made here. It seems like Myriad decided that it didn't seem "important" enough to them, and then they worked backwards from their editorial conclusion and invented reasons it didn't meet their rules. They not only set aside their crafted rules (which yes met), they ALSO set aside the point of the market (will Russia and Ukraine agree to stop fighting, also yes). Perhaps Myriad thought their market was about something much bigger, perhaps even a market that represents the end of the war, or something quite close. (Ok, but if that is the case, then you need much better rules at the outset. Ceasefires within conflicts are very common, and differentiating them in a granular way becomes difficult.) They then took their own definition, that wasn't encompassed by the rules, and twisted the fine print in a way that proved to be very unfair to people who bet yes, and also contradicted reality in the form of official statements/tons of headlines. This ceasefire was definitely not solely humanitarian, insofar as what was announced by every actor here. I'll circle back to what I think would be a great fix for preventing stupid rule fights -- explaining why you've created the market. If Myriad wrote, for instance, that "this market is designed to represent a significant, major breakthrough for peace in a war that has lasted four years" (or whatever they write) then it's very easy and very fair to point to your WHY that you wrote at the very beginning, and say, yeah, this was not a major event in the grand scheme of the conflict. [This definitely would've solved Zelensky suit, because the reason that market existed was because of Zelensky's promise not to wear a suit again until the war was over -- a promise that he hasn't broken yet]. Pre-clarify the point of the market BEFORE a rule fight takes place, as a way to guide any future disputes. It won't solve every issue, and could introduce its own problems on the periphery, but so often the markets get fought over fine print nonsense that makes it all feel very stupid (because it is very stupid). When reality is inverted by a prediction market, you've undermined your whole reason for existing. We're here to predict what happens. Ceasefire explicitly was announced by everyone, rules met, yes got it right. Yes should win. End of.