This market has settled
Trading has finished, so the result below is final. Here is what you can trade right now.
This market resolves to Yes if the lawsuit filed by the coalition of minority-owned bodegas and supermarkets results in stopping, invalidating, or indefinitely delaying the NYC plan to build city-run grocery stores before December 31, 2026. Any court decision or settlement that prevents the stores from being established by this date will constitute a 'Yes' outcome.
This market resolves to 'Yes' if official data from the CDC or a similar authoritative source shows that at least 50% of the eligible U.S. population has received one of the FDA-approved 2026-2027 COVID-19 vaccines by December 31, 2026. If data shows that less than 50% have been vaccinated by this date, the market resolves to 'No'.
This market resolves to Yes if credible public health data released by March 2027 shows at least a 30% reduction in COVID infection rates in the U.S. compared to the same period in the previous year, attributed to the use of new vaccines targeting the XFG variant.
This market resolves to Yes if official attendance records for the 2026 Maryland Renaissance Festival show more than 368,000 attendees by October 25, 2026. The resolution will be based on publicly released attendance figures by the festival organizers.
Will Russia's territorial gains in Ukraine be less than 10 square miles by September 1, 2026?
About this market
This market resolves to Yes if Russian territorial gains in Ukraine between July 28, 2026, and September 1, 2026, are less than 10 square miles, according to publicly available reports from reputable sources such as OSINT groups or international media. Otherwise, it resolves to No.
Rules
- Market closes at 9/1/2026.
- Logic weighted resolution applies.
Russia's net territorial gains in Ukraine for the final four weeks of August 2026 remain below 10 square miles according to some tracking groups, though other military analyses estimate a higher figure.Recent Tracking Data (Late August 2026)DeepState (Ukrainian OSINT group): Recorded a net loss of 3 square miles for Russian forces between July 28 and August 25, 2026, placing progress well under the 10-square-mile mark.Institute for the Study of War (ISW) / Russia Matters Analysis: Estimated a net gain of 21 square miles over the same four-week period, which exceeds 10 square miles.Context on the FrontlineSlowed Momentum: Russian advances across Ukraine have faced severe slowdowns and localized pushbacks throughout the spring and summer of 2026.Ukrainian Counteractivity: Ongoing counterattacks and drone operations by Ukrainian forces have successfully neutralized or reversed Russian gains in several contested sectors.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the conflicting data from DeepState and ISW, both of which are verified by the search results. It avoids logical fallacies and directly addresses the market question about Russia's territorial gains. The reasoning is mostly logical, with minimal emotional appeal. Weights prioritize fact-checking and relevance due to the reliance on specific data and the direct connection to the market question.
Given the current situation, it seems unlikely that Russia will maintain such limited territorial gains in Ukraine. The conflict has escalated in ways that suggest more significant changes could happen by now; recent reports indicated both sides are still in intense skirmishes. Additionally, the international response and support for Ukraine complicate any straightforward predictions. It appears the market might be underestimating the potential for a shift in dynamics.
Rationale:The comment provides a mostly accurate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine, noting ongoing skirmishes and international support for Ukraine, which aligns with recent reports. It avoids logical fallacies and is relevant to the market question, though it could benefit from more specific data to strengthen its claims. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the comment's analytical nature.
tbh, seems like they won't take much more land, like the last few months have shown a lot of stalled advances. I’d say under 10 square miles is a solid bet.
Rationale:The comment provides a reasonable assessment based on recent observations of stalled advances, which is a verifiable fact, hence the score of 80 for Fact Check. There are no significant logical fallacies present, leading to a high score of 90 in that category. The comment is relevant to the market question, but it could be more detailed, resulting in an 85 for Relevance. The emotional appeal is present but not overwhelming, justifying a score of 75 for Logic/Emotion Balance. The weights reflect the importance of factual accuracy and logical coherence in this context.
I honestly think this market is off. Considering how things have been unfolding, especially with the recent counteroffensives, I doubt Russia's gonna gain much more, if anything at all. The cost of maintaining what they have is getting higher, and they seem stretched thin. I'm not saying it'll be easy, but under 10 square miles by September feels pretty reasonable to me.
Rationale:The comment provides a mostly accurate assessment of the situation, particularly regarding the challenges Russia faces in maintaining its territorial gains, which aligns with recent developments. It is logically sound and directly addresses the market question, though it could benefit from more specific data to strengthen its claims. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the context of ongoing military developments.
I think the market might be underestimating the situation. Russia has committed significant resources to the conflict; while it is possible they could see limited gains, they also seem to be facing serious setbacks. The dynamics on the ground appear quite fluid, and it's hard to predict if they will secure any significant territory anytime soon. I would approach this market with caution.
Rationale:The comment provides a mostly accurate assessment of the situation, noting Russia's resource commitment and setbacks, which aligns with current reports. It avoids logical fallacies and is relevant to the market question, discussing the unpredictability of territorial gains. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the nuanced nature of the topic.
Current spread suggests a low chance of significant territory change, but given Russia's history, I wouldn't underestimate their ability to push for more. The risk of escalation is key here.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current market sentiment regarding territorial changes, supported by historical context about Russia's actions. It presents a logical analysis of the situation without major fallacies, though it does contain some emotional appeal regarding the risk of escalation. The weights prioritize relevance and logical soundness, given the comment's focus on the market question and its implications.
The current odds seem way too high given the ongoing conflict dynamics. Historical trends show that territorial gains often vary widely, but with ongoing pressures, I'd lean toward gains being minimal.
Rationale:The comment provides a reasonable assessment of the market question, referencing ongoing conflict dynamics and historical trends, which are relevant to the prediction. While the claim about historical trends is somewhat vague, it does not contain significant factual inaccuracies. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, with a slight emphasis on relevance to the market question.
honestly, i think this is gonna be way off. russia's been making small gains but it seems more like they aint getting much further than they have been. the whole situation feels like a stalemate, and there's always the chance of pushback from ukraine. even if they grab a bit more land, i doubt it'll be more than 10 square miles by september. might be worth betting against this one, tbh. u gotta think about the conditions on the ground too, and they lose momentum fast.
Rationale:The comment provides a mostly accurate assessment of the situation, noting the stalemate and potential for Ukrainian pushback, which aligns with current analyses. However, it lacks specific data to fully substantiate its claims, leading to a score of 75 for Fact Check. The reasoning is sound with minimal fallacies, hence a high score for No Fallacies. The comment is directly relevant to the market question, discussing the likelihood of Russia's territorial gains. The emotional appeal is present but balanced with logical reasoning, justifying the weights assigned.
Given the ongoing conflict and the complexity of the situation, I think it's unlikely that territorial gains will be as minimal as 10 square miles by September; the dynamics on the ground suggest more volatility and potential changes.
Rationale:The comment presents a reasonable perspective on the volatility of the situation, but lacks specific evidence to support the claim that gains will exceed 10 square miles, leading to a score of 70 for Fact Check. It is free from logical fallacies and is relevant to the market question, though it could benefit from more concrete data. The weights reflect a balanced emphasis on logical reasoning and relevance, given the speculative nature of the comment.
The idea that Russia's gains will be so limited seems overly optimistic; given their previous movements, I wouldn't be surprised if they push for more ambitious goals instead.
Rationale:The comment presents a reasonable perspective on the potential for Russia's territorial ambitions, but it lacks specific evidence to support the claim that their gains will be more than 10 square miles. The argument is logically sound with no major fallacies, and it is relevant to the market question, though it leans slightly on emotional interpretation of Russia's past actions. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical reasoning, with less emphasis on factual verification due to the speculative nature of the comment.