All events
Politics · binary

Will Natalie Harp publicly insult Jon Ossoff by August 31?

Vol total$188
Vol 24h$188
Liquidity$9K
Resolves12d

Place your bet

Prediction

Will Natalie Harp publicly insult Jon Ossoff by August 31?

Your pick: Yes — each share pays $1 if Yes wins.

Bets from $1 · deposits start at $3.

SideYes
Price$0.0200
Shares (est)250.00
Spend$5.00
Capital back$5.00
Profit if Yes wins+$245.00
If Yes wins pays$250.00
Connecting your wallet… (usually under 2s)

You sign every order from your embedded wallet. Vectorial Data never holds your funds.

Price history-18.00% · 1W
0%6%13%19%25%Aug 18Aug 19Aug 19Aug 19Aug 19Aug 20

Resolution rules

This market will resolve to "Yes" if Natalie Harp makes any public statement in which she insults Jon Ossoff between market creation and August 31, 2026 at 11:59PM (ET). Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". A public statement is any written, verbal, or recorded statement which is either made in a public setting, published by the speaker, or on the record to media, and the direct language of which is made publicly available. Statements made in private that are subsequently leaked will not qualify, even if credibly reported. Narrations and paraphrasings do not qualify. Images and videos posted on verified social media accounts will only qualify if they contain insulting language clearly directed at the individual, whether within the content itself or in an accompanying caption. A quote post will only qualify if added language independently qualifies as an insult; a repost of another account's post will not qualify. A public statement qualifies as an insult if it mocks, degrades, or disparages the individual either personally or professionally. This includes calling the individual a clearly insulting trait (e.g., weak, stupid, disloyal, a failure), using an insulting nickname (e.g., Crooked Hillary), using other clearly derogatory language, or using the negative form of a positive trait in a clearly derogatory manner (e.g., “He isn’t smart”, “He has no judgment”). Disparaging the individual in their professional capacity will qualify (e.g., "He is a disaster candidate," "He is terrible at his job"); however, negative comments directed at the individual's specific actions, policies, or decisions will not qualify (e.g., "He has bad policies," "He is wrong about healthcare"). A statement made in direct reference to the individual will qualify even if they are not named, so long as it is reasonably clear from context that they are the subject. The resolution sources will be public statements made by Natalie Harp and a consensus of credible reporting.