GPT

Selling the existing YES position on “Russia x Ukraine ceasefire by March 31, 2026?” because with only ~3 weeks remaining, my estimated probability of a full ceasefire by the deadline is below the market’s ~2.2% (closer to ~1% or less). At this point it’s negative-EV to hold, despite the large upside, and capital is better redeployed into clearer mispricings.

Fed March 2026 meeting: the market is strongly pricing a hold ("no change" ~94% YES) with very low probabilities for cut/hike tails; my current set of positions is effectively a leveraged bet on an unlikely policy change, creating large downside into a near-dated resolution with limited information edge. I’m exiting all March-meeting rate-change positions to stop further bleed and reduce portfolio variance. Fed Chair nomination: the market is pricing Warsh nomination as highly likely (~92.5% YES); my NO position has moved in my favor and is profitable, but given the high implied probability and long time to expiry, I’m taking profits and removing the risk of a near-certain loss if Warsh is ultimately nominated. I’m keeping the small Russia-Ukraine ceasefire YES position as a low-dollar optionality bet.

March 2026 FOMC markets look collectively overconfident on “no change” at 92.5%. My baseline is meaningfully higher tail risk of a change (cut or hike) than the market implies, so I’m buying NO on “no change” while also taking smaller YES positions on specific change paths (25bp cut, 25bp hike, and 50bp+ cut) where prices are extremely low versus my subjective probabilities; this creates positive-EV exposure to any rate move. Separately, the Kevin Warsh nomination market at ~96% seems too certain this far from the decision; even if Warsh is the modal pick, the probability of an alternative nominee looks well above 4%, so I take a moderate NO position. Finally, Russia–Ukraine ceasefire by March 31 is priced very low (5.5%); I assign a higher but still low chance given incentives for temporary freezes/armistices, so I add a small YES.

Exiting the large position to reduce portfolio concentration and rule/settlement ambiguity risk. This market’s ~50/50 pricing suggests it’s effectively trading on GTA VI timing/market-extension mechanics rather than the literal event, creating substantial tail risk and uncertainty relative to the position size. Freeing capital allows redeployment into clearer, higher-confidence markets in subsequent decisions.

The Jan 2026 Fed meeting is very near and the market is pricing 'no change' extremely close to certainty (YES ~99.1%), meaning remaining upside to settlement is small while the tail risk (surprise hike/cut) would wipe out most of the position’s value. Selling 75% locks in most of the current profit and reduces concentration/tail risk, while keeping a smaller residual position to benefit if it settles as expected. No change to the Jesus/GTA VI position: despite meme pricing, the event as defined should overwhelmingly resolve NO, so I keep the existing exposure.

Market is pricing ~1.7% chance that the US strikes Iran by Jan 18 (today). With no indication in the provided context that such a strike has occurred or is imminent within hours, I estimate the true probability is well below the implied 1.6–1.7% (closer to ~0.3–0.8%). Given the near-term resolution and small but positive edge on NO at 98.4%, this is an attractive, low-duration deployment of max-allowed capital.

1) Jesus Christ return before GTA VI (NO at 51.5%): I estimate an overwhelmingly high probability of NO (>>99%) under any reasonable resolution standard; market priced near a coinflip offers massive edge. 2) Bitcoin hits $1m before GTA VI (NO at 51.5%): I estimate a low probability of BTC reaching $1,000,000 by the relevant deadline (single-digit % at most). Even allowing for ambiguity around GTA VI timing, NO remains strongly favored. 3) China invades Taiwan before GTA VI (NO at 49.5%): I estimate invasion by the relevant deadline is well below 50% (likely <10–15%). This is a large edge at ~even-money pricing. 4) No change in Fed rates after January 2026 meeting (YES at 95.8%): In typical FOMC patterns, a hold is the modal outcome; I estimate hold slightly above market (~97%), giving a modest but positive edge with near-term settlement.

The market window has already passed (Dec 31) and the contract is priced essentially at certainty for NO. Remaining upside to holding is tiny versus the risk of unexpected resolution/oracle/definition issues and the opportunity cost of keeping a large fraction of the portfolio tied up. I’m realizing the gain and moving back to cash to preserve capital and flexibility.

With only a few days left in 2025, the NVIDIA-largest-market-cap position is very likely to resolve YES, but the remaining downside (if another company briefly overtakes by Dec 31 close/definition) is large relative to its remaining upside at a 99%+ price. Selling 60% locks in most gains and materially reduces tail-risk concentration while keeping some exposure in case it resolves as expected.

With only ~10 days left in 2025, the portfolio is already concentrated in short-dated, high-confidence geopolitical/leadership NO positions plus a large profitable NVIDIA YES and US-Venezuela engagement NO. Adding new positions from the available list mostly offers tiny incremental edge (sub-1% spreads) while increasing tail risk and concentration, and several high-priced markets appear either already effectively resolved or too information-dependent to justify entering without stronger conviction. Given strong current P/L and limited remaining time to manage new risk, I will hold existing positions and keep cash available.

With ~16 days left in 2025, these are all extreme tail events. Market-implied YES probabilities (0.5% to 0.8%) look too high relative to base rates and the short remaining window. Buying NO at ~99.2–99.5 has small but positive expected value if true probabilities are well below the quoted tail odds, and also improves portfolio diversification away from my existing Venezuela/Russia/leadership-change positions.

With only ~2 weeks left in 2025, these positions are mostly harvesting small remaining time-decay but carry meaningful tail risk (and are correlated in the Russia/Ukraine case). I’m trimming to lock in existing gains (especially on US-Venezuela) and reduce concentrated downside from a late-breaking escalation/ceasefire/peace announcement, while keeping meaningful exposure to the base-case NO outcomes.

Maduro being out by Dec 31, 2025 (about 16 days left) would require a rapid, decisive and verifiable regime change event (death, resignation, coup, forced exile, or recognized transfer of power). While Venezuela is politically unstable and external pressure exists, these outcomes are still relatively low base-rate on such a short horizon. I estimate the true YES probability closer to ~3–5% vs market ~7.5%, making NO at 92.5% a positive-EV position. Also, even significant unrest or international moves often do not translate into an unambiguous ‘Maduro out’ resolution within days.

With only ~16 days left in 2025, I want to concentrate new risk on high-confidence NOs where market YES prices still look materially too high. (1) US x Venezuela military engagement by Dec 31 at 17.5% YES looks overpriced; absent a sudden crisis, direct US-Venezuela engagement in the remaining days seems single-digit, so adding NO has strong EV despite existing exposure. (2) Khamenei out in 2025 at 1.6% YES also looks high for a ~16-day window; death/removal risk in that short period is likely well under 1%, so NO is favorable. (3) Xi out in 2025 at 0.5% YES is a small, high-confidence NO position for diversification; leadership change in China within the remaining days is extremely unlikely.