Does any proposed or rumored US-Greenland arrangement actually meet the binding-instrument-plus-exclusive-jurisdiction threshold, or would it likely fall into the explicitly excluded categories like basing rights or COFA-type arrangements?

Does any proposed or rumored US-Greenland arrangement actually meet the binding-instrument-plus-exclusive-jurisdiction threshold, or would it likely fall into the explicitly excluded categories like basing rights or COFA-type arrangements?

Is the price divergence between Polymarket and PredictIt driven by genuinely different resolution criteria (purchase+annex vs. any acquisition), or is it a fee-adjusted arbitrage opportunity after accounting for PredictIt's withdrawal limits and transaction costs?

Is the price divergence between Polymarket and PredictIt driven by genuinely different resolution criteria (purchase+annex vs. any acquisition), or is it a fee-adjusted arbitrage opportunity after accounting for PredictIt's withdrawal limits and transaction costs?

Given the -0.45 autocorrelation, is the current price level following a large move in either direction — and if so, is fading that move the higher-EV play versus taking a directional position?

Markets

Polymarketother

Will the US acquire part of Greenland in 2026?

14%No 86¢

Trade →

ResolvesDec 31, 2026230d 22h

⇄Cross-Platform

Poly14%

PredictIt4%

11\u00A2 gap · 1¢ after fees

RiskModerate

Also trades on PredictIt (1 outcome)

Price History

Structural Analysis

AI-generated

This is a geopolitical longshot with high daily volatility and a negative autocorrelation of -0.45, meaning big price swings tend to reverse — traders chasing momentum here are systematically getting chopped. The real edge is recognizing that longshot contracts below 10 cents lose over 60% of capital on average (Burgi et al.), so unless you have a specific view on resolution probability that's meaningfully above the market price, the structural drift is against you on the YES side.

ResolutionThe resolution criteria are unusually strict — a handshake deal, MOU, or expanded basing rights explicitly do NOT qualify, only a binding legal instrument transferring sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction. This means any 'almost there' news cycle (framework agreements, letters of intent, congressional proposals) will move the price without actually changing resolution probability, creating whipsaw opportunities for traders who read the criteria carefully.

CalibrationResearch on Polymarket shows only 67% outcome-correctness versus 93% on PredictIt, meaning this platform has systematically noisier pricing — the cross-platform gap here is more likely to reflect Polymarket mispricing than PredictIt mispricing. The long-dated horizon compounds this: prediction market prices at long horizons compress toward 50% relative to true probabilities, so a longshot priced here is probably even less likely to resolve YES than the market price suggests.

RisksCross-platform divergence is flagged as large and persistent, which sounds like free money but isn't — the PredictIt and Kalshi contracts have subtly different resolution language (PredictIt requires 'purchase and annex,' Kalshi has no 2026 deadline), so the divergence may reflect genuine scope differences rather than pure arbitrage. High manipulation risk (55/100) combined with thin real liquidity means a single coordinated news drop or large order could move the price dramatically before you can adjust.

Questions worth asking

Does any proposed or rumored US-Greenland arrangement actually meet the binding-instrument-plus-exclusive-jurisdiction threshold, or would it likely fall into the explicitly excluded categories like basing rights or COFA-type arrangements?
Is the price divergence between Polymarket and PredictIt driven by genuinely different resolution criteria (purchase+annex vs. any acquisition), or is it a fee-adjusted arbitrage opportunity after accounting for PredictIt's withdrawal limits and transaction costs?
Given the -0.45 autocorrelation, is the current price level following a large move in either direction — and if so, is fading that move the higher-EV play versus taking a directional position?

Risk Profile

Moderate Risk5-dimension assessment

vol=$9,941,456, spread=0.0¢, OI=n/a

σ=7.19%/day, AC=-0.17, 31 points

The contract has clear binary criteria (transfer of sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction/control) and identifies specific resolution sources (official government statements). Primary risk factors are: (1) potential ambiguity around what constitutes a "binding agreement" if announcements lack formal documentation, (2) the exclusion of arrangements like basing rights or leases requires distinguishing similar agreements, and (3) the need to verify whether transfers qualify as "new" control if existing arrangements are modified. However, actual sovereignty transfers or Guantánamo-style arrangements would be objectively verifiable through official government sources.

Platform default: polymarket

232d to resolution, volume stable

high_volatilityno_news_volatility

Resolution Criteria

Source: Polymarket

This market will resolve to “Yes” if the United States acquires control of any land territory that is part of Greenland by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. Only the transfer of sovereignty, or the acquisition of primary or exclusive jurisdiction or contro...

11¢ raw spread

Consensus Landscape

Poly

0%25%50%75%100%

Poly: 14¢

PI: 4¢