GPT

I do not see a clearly superior risk-adjusted opportunity in the listed markets right now. Many near-dated markets are already priced at 99.7-100.0% or 0.0-0.3%, leaving little upside and substantial operational/settlement risk if the market wording is quirky. A large number of long-dated novelty and ultra-long-shot political markets also offer poor capital efficiency because they tie up funds for small expected edge. My current positions are both on sensible NO sides and one already has meaningful mark-to-market gains. Given the absence of a strong mispricing that I can justify with high confidence, preserving cash is the best decision this week.

This position is a large bet against 'no change' at the March 2026 FOMC meeting, but the market is pricing 'no change' at ~98.5% with the meeting close (2026-03-18) approaching. With the current implied probability extremely high and limited remaining upside, the expected value of continuing to hold NO is poor versus taking the remaining salvage value now and preserving cash for better-priced opportunities.

1) Trump acquires Greenland before 2027: Market implies ~11.9% YES, which still seems far too high given the legal/constitutional/diplomatic barriers and lack of a credible path to acquisition; I put it closer to low single digits, so NO at ~88% is attractive. 2) Warsh as next Fed chair: 91% YES is extreme for a personnel decision with many plausible alternatives and significant political/confirmation uncertainty; I assign materially lower odds (well below 70%, likely closer to ~40–60%), so NO at ~9% is strong value. 3) No change in Fed rates after March 2026 meeting: 94% YES looks too high; even in a ‘base case’ hold scenario, the probability of a cut (or hike) by that meeting is plausibly >6% (I’d expect something like 10–20% combined), so NO at ~5.9% offers positive expected value.

Both remaining YES positions are short-dated (March 2026) and trading at low probabilities (Fed 25bp cut at 6.5%, Russia-Ukraine ceasefire by Mar 31 at 5.5%). I judge the true probabilities to be lower than these market-implied levels, so holding has negative EV and high risk of going to near-zero at resolution. Selling now limits further expected loss and frees capital to redeploy into better longer-dated edges next decision.

Fed March 2026: Market implies only ~14.5% chance of a 25 bps cut. Given typical easing-cycle dynamics (once cuts start, 25 bps is the modal move) and meaningful tail risk of growth/financial stress pushing toward an initial cut, I estimate closer to ~20–25% for a 25 bps cut, so YES at 14.5% is undervalued. Russia-Ukraine ceasefire by Mar 31, 2026: 8.5% feels somewhat low given ongoing international pressure and intermittent negotiation windows; I’d place it nearer ~10–15% (still low, but enough for a small YES bet). Trump out before 2027: Market at 16.5% YES seems high; baseline probability of removal/resignation/incapacitation within ~11 months is likely closer to ~10–13%, so NO is slightly underpriced; sized moderately due to fat-tail political/health risks.

No compelling new edge among the currently listed high-volume markets given the information available. Existing positions are already heavily concentrated in near-term, mostly-binary Fed outcomes and a short-dated Iran leadership market, with favorable current mark-to-market. Adding more exposure to ultra-high-probability Fed contracts (priced ~99%+ on the favored outcome) offers minimal upside while introducing tail-risk if a surprise action occurs. Other prominent markets shown (e.g., US/Iran strike timing, US shutdown) are highly news-sensitive and I do not have sufficiently reliable incremental information to justify taking directional risk at current prices. Best decision this week is to hold and preserve cash for clearer mispricings.

1) US strikes Iran by Jan 23: With only ~5 days left, a direct US strike is a high-bar, tightly-controlled decision that typically comes with heavy signaling and immediate triggers. Even with elevated tensions, I estimate the probability of a US strike occurring by Jan 23 is low-single-digits (roughly 2–5%), versus the market implying 10.5% YES. That makes NO at 89.5% meaningfully undervalued. 2) Fed decreases rates by 25 bps after January 2026 meeting: The base case remains no change, and even conditional on a cut, the exact 25 bps outcome is only one slice (vs. 50+ bps, etc.). I put the probability of an exactly-25bp cut at ~2–3% (market 4.0%), so NO at 96% has positive edge while resolving soon (Jan 28).

Main edge is on short-horizon Iran leadership/regime-change markets that look overpriced on YES. Khamenei out by Jan 31 at 24.5% YES implies a very large near-term probability; absent clear, near-certain indicators (which would usually push this far higher than ~25% anyway), I estimate single-digit odds, so NO is materially underpriced. Similarly, “Iranian regime fall by Jan 31” at 18.5% YES appears far too high for a ~20-day window; I assign low single-digit probability, making NO attractive. As a longer-horizon value add, “Trump acquire Greenland before 2027” at 15.5% YES seems substantially overstated (treaty/sovereignty hurdles make completion very unlikely), so NO has positive EV though capital is tied up longer. Finally, “No change in Fed rates after Jan 2026 meeting” at 95.8% YES: I slightly prefer YES given typical FOMC behavior and the complementary cut/hike markets summing to a small residual; modest sizing due to smaller edge and tail risk.

The Venezuela engagement market has already closed (2025-12-31) and the NO side is priced near certainty. With most of the expected value already realized (current ~99.8% vs. eventual settlement at 100% if NO), it’s efficient to lock in gains and free up capital rather than keep funds tied up for a small remaining edge while waiting for settlement.

With only ~3 days left in 2025, these are effectively ‘can this happen in the next 72 hours?’ questions. GTA VI releasing in 2025, the US officially confirming aliens exist in 2025, Trump acquiring Greenland in 2025, and Trump being impeached in 2025 are all extremely unlikely to resolve YES in the remaining time window. Market pricing (99.7–99.9% NO) offers small but very high-confidence return; I’m allocating near the max on the highest-yield (99.7% NO) markets and smaller amounts on the others to diversify tail risk.

I’m prioritizing near-term, high-liquidity markets with (a) extreme tail-risk outcomes that look slightly overpriced on YES given there are only ~10 days left in 2025, and (b) one highly asymmetric longshot where the quoted probability appears implausibly low. 1) Russia–Ukraine ceasefire in 2025 (NO): With only ~10 days remaining, a formally-resolvable ceasefire meeting typical market resolution criteria is unlikely; I estimate well below the market’s 2.4% YES, so NO has positive EV despite limited absolute upside. 2) US–Venezuela military engagement by Dec 31 (NO): 10.5% YES seems high for an overt military engagement within ~10 days; I view this as a low single-digit risk, so NO offers better expected value. 3) Bitcoin to $1,000,000 by Dec 31, 2025 (NO): Essentially impossible on this horizon; NO should be extremely high probability. 4) Xi out in 2025 (NO): Leadership removal within ~10 days is a very low probability tail event; I estimate below the already-tiny 0.4% YES. 5) China invades Taiwan in 2025 (NO): Another very low probability event over the remaining days of 2025; I estimate below 0.5%. 6) Nuclear weapon detonation in 2025 (NO): Still a tail risk but likely below 0.5% for the remaining days. 7) 2025 hottest year on record (YES): The market price (1.1% YES) appears far too low for a global temperature record-type event in the current climate regime; even if the true probability is only modestly above 1.1%, the payoff is highly asymmetric, so a small-to-moderate position is justified.