Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by December 31?: Yes was quoted at 58.0%, while Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by December 31?: No was at 42.0% in the 2 August 2026, 09:48 UTC snapshot. The 16.0-point separation visible at the top of the snapshot records traded prices under a specific contract. It is not an objective probability, a representative poll or a complete account of the underlying issue.
Context for this bet
- What the contract asks
- This market will resolve to “Yes” if IMF Portwatch publishes a 7-day moving average of transit calls (“Arrivals of Ships”) for the Strait of Hormuz equal to or above 60 for any date between market creation and December 31, 2026. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. Daily transit calls include container, dry bulk, roll-on/roll-off, general cargo, and tanker ships. Ships not reported by IMF Portwatch will not be considered. This market will resolve as soon as IMF Portwatch publishes a 7-day moving average of transit calls equal to or above the specified level, or once data has been published for the final date in the specified period and no such value has been published.
- Why it matters
- The outcome matters because transport through a major energy corridor can affect freight, insurance, physical supply and expectations well beyond the contract itself.
- The event resolves under its written trigger, deadline and evidence hierarchy [1].
- International Maritime Organization maintains an outside reference relevant to the underlying event or its measurement [2].
- International Monetary Fund provides a separate record that can help test the settlement context [3].
What the contract actually asks
This market will resolve to “Yes” if IMF Portwatch publishes a 7-day moving average of transit calls (“Arrivals of Ships”) for the Strait of Hormuz equal to or above 60 for any date between market creation and December 31, 2026. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. Daily transit calls include container, dry bulk, roll-on/roll-off, general cargo, and tanker ships. Ships not reported by IMF Portwatch will not be considered. This market will resolve as soon as IMF Portwatch publishes a 7-day moving average of transit calls equal to or above the specified level, or once data has been published for the final date in the specified period and no such value has been published. That wording is the analytical starting point. A development can dominate headlines and still fail the formal trigger, while a narrowly documented event can satisfy the contract before the wider story is settled [1].
The deadline and evidence hierarchy deserve equal weight with the headline. They determine which time zone applies, whether an announcement is enough, what action or measurement qualifies, and whether later clarification can change the apparent result. Treating those details as footnotes produces false precision. The contract should therefore be read as a conditional test with named inputs, not as a free-form verdict on the broader story [1].
References [1]
Where the 2 August snapshot put the weight
Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by December 31?: Yes was quoted at 58.0%, while Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by December 31?: No was at 42.0% in the 2 August 2026, 09:48 UTC snapshot. The event recorded about $235,500 in 24-hour volume and $264,000 in market-level liquidity at the snapshot time [1]. Activity at the event level does not guarantee equal depth, freshness or trading interest in each underlying outcome.
The 16.0-point separation between the two leading displayed positions is more informative than either decimal on its own. It shows where marginal traders placed relative weight at that moment. It does not show how much size could trade at the displayed price, whether the spread was narrow, or whether all outcomes were updated at the same pace. A date-stamped snapshot is evidence of market state, not a promise about what happens next.
References [1]
What the structure appears to imply
Read cautiously, the ordering suggests which rule-defined path traders considered easier to reach. A curve across dates says something about timing. A set of candidates, price barriers or named outcomes says something about relative ranking. Neither should be promoted into a claim that the market has discovered the true probability of the broader event. The contract may be measuring documentation, timing or threshold mechanics as much as the real-world development named in its title.
Independently traded outcomes are not survey answers drawn from one representative sample. They can carry different spreads, incentives and participant mixes. Their percentages may overlap or leave gaps, particularly when each contract is a separate yes-or-no order book. That structure makes comparison useful, but simply adding the numbers can be misleading. The strongest inference is usually about relative attention and the shape of expectations, not a precise forecast [1].
References [1]
Why that reading can fail
New evidence can change the underlying outlook, but a price can also move because traders reinterpret a deadline, a defined term or the resolution source. A shift caused by a rules clarification is analytically different from a shift caused by new information about the world, even when both appear as the same movement on a chart. Ambiguous attribution, delayed official records and conflicting reports can widen that gap [1].
Market quality is a second source of error. The last traded price can be stale, a small order can move a thin book, and aggregate liquidity can conceal weak depth in the outcome a reader cares about. Volume measures activity, not accuracy. Different contracts can also attract different groups of traders and react at different speeds. None of these figures converts the snapshot into an audited forecast or removes the need to examine outside evidence.
References [1]
Evidence is part of the outcome
Maritime security is the first outside reference used here [2]. PortWatch trade-disruption data supplies a separate check on the public record [3]. Neither source substitutes for the market rules. Together, they help distinguish a claim about the world from a claim about whether the contract's named test has been met. That distinction is especially important when the relevant event is fast-moving, disputed or measured through a narrow data source.
The disciplined approach is to compare each new fact with the exact settlement trigger. First ask what happened. Then ask when it happened, how it was documented, which source reported it and whether the named resolution process recognizes it. Only after those checks should a reader decide whether the information bears on the contract rather than merely on the larger story. This sequence limits the temptation to turn a striking price into a stronger conclusion than the evidence supports.
What to watch
- The exact primary record or credible reporting named by the settlement rules.
- Changes in the gap between the leading rule-defined outcomes, checked against individual-contract depth.
- Any clarification to the deadline, evidence hierarchy, measurement method or qualifying terminology.
Prices are a dated snapshot, not objective probabilities or trading advice. Polyruler is editorially independent and has no financial relationship with Polymarket or the people and institutions discussed.