Medium Risk
Some ambiguity present. Human review recommended before large positions.
Moderate rule clarity (55/100). The market is generally well-structured with solid time clarity and outcome definition. Note: No explicit resolution source URL or reference provided. Ambiguity is limited but traders should review the full resolution criteria before trading.
Six weighted criteria
Time Clarity
How clearly the resolution deadline and time parameters are defined.
Resolution timeline is explicitly defined with a specific date and time reference.
20/20
Resolution Source
Whether an authoritative, verifiable data source is named.
Resolution source is absent or relies on vague, unverifiable references.
1/20
Outcome Definition
How precisely the YES/NO resolution conditions are specified.
Outcome conditions are precisely defined with explicit YES/NO resolution criteria.
18/20
Evidence Standard
Whether acceptable and excluded evidence types are documented.
Evidence standards are implied by context but not formally defined.
5/15
Edge Case Handling
Coverage of delays, revisions, cancellations, and disputed data.
Basic edge cases may be implied but are not explicitly documented in the rules.
5/15
Post-Trade Risk
Risk of retroactive re-interpretation after the market closes.
Moderate post-trade risk — some resolution criteria could be interpreted differently.
6/10
How this market settles
No on-chain dispute record available
Polymarket markets resolve via the UMA Optimistic Oracle on Polygon. The Gamma API did not return dispute metadata for this market, so no challenge history can be confirmed here.
Volume
$2K
24h Change
+1.0pp
Liquidity
$770.9718
24h Volume
$129.35
End Date
June 30, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC
Resolution Source
Not specifiedDescription
This market will resolve to "Yes" if Donald Trump makes any public statement in which he insults, mocks, or attacks the listed individual personally or professionally in a clearly negative manner between market creation and the specified date (ET). Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". This includes calling the individual weak, stupid, disloyal, a failure, using an insulting nickname, using other derogatory language, or using the negative form of a positive trait in a derogatory personal way (e.g., “He/She isn’t smart”). Negative forms used in reference to the individual's professional actions, policies, or decisions (e.g., “He/She isn’t being smart about this policy”) will not count. Policy disagreements stated without disparaging language will not count. A direct reference will qualify even if the individual is not named, so long as it is reasonably clear from context that they are the subject. Any written, verbal, or recorded public statement by Trump qualifies. The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.
Same category or risk level
Outcomes
Will Bitcoin reach $90,000 in June?
