Thank you for all the comments. This was the first time I used this tool. I understand that the explanation needs to be objective and clear. I failed, but I learned for future attempts. I will leave it as N/A, as I understand that this choice returns the bets and closes the matter. Thank you.

@069 NA is bad in this specific scenario as it erases unrealized gains and losses from prior trades. I suggest you reopen it under the original specification.

@Cactus

@deagol rip, I guess @mods can have the final say here but I feel like this one is pretty clear that it shouldn't NA. IMO, a market can't have one specification and change based on a creator comment later after traders have bet, even if we assume the creator was well meaning in intent. Creator also shouldnt nullify it just because what they thought they said at first doesn't match what they actually said. That's the most generous interpretation here; what's to stop people from freerolling in the future with less genuine intent if this policy continues?

@deagol it also seems OP deleted their account....

cc @mods ok with this outcome?

@069 why are we NAing this market? @Gen had perfectly reasonable argument for not NAing and just wait to see if both conditions fulfill

I’ve temporarily deboosted this market while we sort out the criteria. For those who aren’t familiar, this decreases the placement of the market on the home page and in search results, but doesn’t otherwise affect the market.

:/

@mods someone without a position should probably clarify the title/description based on the creator comments (I gather from their use of an AI description they probably would be ok with someone updating it for them) - the current AI clarifications are bad

The creator has a large YES position so there is no reason not to believe their intentions are good here. Hopefully the price stays off 120 and the timeframe has no impact on the market outcome

@Gen Fwiw I bet on NO so it would advantage me to keep the market with the "exactly at expiry" interpretation but I think it should be cancelled. It doesn't matter if both interpretations happen to lead to the same result in the end; people made bets they wouldn't have made with a proper understanding of the conditions.

@pietrokc it does matter, bc as a NO holder I would rather grant them the most charitable interpretation than N/A because I think both interpretations resolve NO

I don’t think it’s necessarily better to cancel the market (benefiting the creator, too) if everyone gets their expected outcome based on the interpretation they had when betting. (I.e. a nuclear option that I think is preferable to N/A would be to close the market, and only resolve YES or NO if both versions are met, otherwise NA)

I encourage you to argue more if you feel I’m wrong tho, no hard feelings! I’ll back any mod decision, and I won’t comment further bc I don’t want any mod or the creator to feel overly swayed by a staff comment. Go with your gut or field multiple mod opinions if unsure (for the mods/creator)

@Gen I'd be ok with your strategy to resolve only if both interpretations resolve the same.

I don't understand how N/Aing the market benefits the creator though. Doesn't N/A simply undo all bets and trades?

@pietrokc in this case the creator had the largest YES position, which is a red flag, but not necessarily evidence they’re doing anything wrong (they deleted their account after resolving N/A unfortunately 😢)

Which futures contract is this about? Any Brent crude futures price, or a specific one?

@EvanDaniel Probably April? @069?

@Hakari the link shared in this creator comment goes to the May contract, I think?

https://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-historical-data

@deagol ok from this list: https://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-contracts

it seems April already settled and May is the earliest one.

@traders putting a 2000 mana order at 40 if any takers. Only lasts a few hours.

Can you link the specific place on investing.com that you will use for resolution? There are a lot of things called Brent Crude on there, and "futures" is not one thing, but a family of contracts of varying duration.

@pietrokc hi friend, My English isn't very good. I meant Brent Futures. Simple chart, just for reference of the 31.03 value. See https://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-historical-data

Tkt for the question

@069 wait, you say just for the March 31 value? but the title says 'by' (no later than), and the description confirms "at any point on or before March 31". Can you confirm, is it on any day or only at the end of the month? Thanks.

@deagol Daniel, tks for your attention, the correct is the Title (by end).

@069 Well the title agrees with the description, it's just these last clarifications which got me confused. Let me try again, maybe different phrasing: It can only resolve YES on March 31, and not any earlier day where the price might be >$120?

@deagol March 31st, needs to be 120 USD (+).

@069 ok so this now directly contradicts the title and description! I suggest changing 'by' with 'at' in both, as well as this part in description: "resolves NO if the price remains below $120 through the end of March 31" maybe change 'remains' with 'is' and 'through' with 'at'.

Unfortunately, I suspect many traders have been trading based on the original interpretation: 'by' = 'any day up to' (combined with the unambiguous description and AI "clarifications") and probably have a strong case for N/A this market.

@069 I placed my bet on the understanding that you meant it hits $120 at some point before the end of this month, not just on the last day.

@EvanDaniel I suggest you intervene quickly given these circumstances to set a final resolution criteria

@Cactus it's unlikely to matter now, I don't think the price will cross any time before either now that we've seen a 119.46 peak on the linked contract. Happy to bet on it elsewhere if you guys want