TL;DROn April 24, 2026, Naly's clearest disagreements are the Iran leadership change Polymarket at 18c YES and the U.S.-Iran diplomatic meeting market at 17c YES: both look closer to 100c YES to us because the underlying events appear to have already happened. The sharpest reason is stale interpretation, not fresh probability, with official reporting lagging market positioning.
All market prices below are April 24, 2026 snapshots from the selected event list. In a $1 binary contract, 17c YES means you pay $0.17 now for a $1 payout if YES resolves, so the quote is roughly the market-implied probability. Our fair price is the cents value implied by Naly's own probability on that same side.
- Two Iran markets look mispriced because the event the contract asks about appears to have already happened.
- Two April WTI high markets still trade like open questions even though official EIA daily data already cleared both thresholds.
- The common failure mode is interpretation and timing: traders seem anchored to future headlines or current spot levels rather than the exact resolution condition.
- When the condition is already satisfied, remaining risk is mostly oracle wording or benchmark selection, not fresh event probability.
4 Mispricings at a Glance
Polymarket Top Answer
No 83%
Naly Top Answer
Yes 100%
Max Payout if Correct
+83c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: Traders appear to be pricing whether a second meeting happens, not whether the first Islamabad meeting already qualified.
Polymarket Top Answer
No 82%
Naly Top Answer
Yes 100%
Max Payout if Correct
+82c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: Major outlets already treat Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader, but the market still seems to be pricing uncertainty about consolidation.
Polymarket Top Answer
No 76%
Naly Top Answer
Yes 100%
Max Payout if Correct
+76c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: Official EIA daily spot data already printed above $110, so the market looks anchored to current price rather than the month's high-water mark.
Polymarket Top Answer
No 63%
Naly Top Answer
Yes 100%
Max Payout if Correct
+63c
0c
50c
$1.00
Polymarket
Naly
Why we disagree: The strike was already cleared in official April prints, but traders still seem to be pricing the contract like a forward-looking call.
How to read this: Polymarket Top Answer and Naly Top Answer show the final answer each side sees as most likely. Max Payout if Correct shows the gross upside from the current quote to the $1 settlement if the selected contract side wins. The horizontal graph still shows where that selected side sits on a 0c to $1 range for Polymarket versus Naly.
+83c
Max Payout if Correct
Traders appear to be pricing whether a second meeting happens, not whether the first Islamabad meeting already qualified.
Causal Chain
Cause
Cause bullet: Pakistan-mediated ceasefire diplomacy created pressure for direct contact, and both delegations landed in Islamabad.
↓
Effect
Effect bullet: Direct face-to-face talks began on April 11 and ran into April 12, which likely satisfies the event if the contract only requires a diplomatic meeting by the deadline.
↓
Projection
Projection bullet: Once traders internalize that the qualifying meeting likely already occurred, price should move toward YES unless the oracle uses an unusually narrow definition.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
Axios reported on April 11 that direct U.S.-Iran negotiations had begun in Islamabad and described them as the highest-level engagement between the two sides since 1979. |
| ▲ |
Al Jazeera reported on April 11 that in-person talks were under way in Islamabad after earlier bilateral meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. |
| ▲ |
Al Jazeera's April 13 reconstruction said the talks lasted 21 hours and ended without a deal, which still means the meeting itself happened. |
| ▲ |
AP on April 24 described Pakistan as trying to convene a second round, implying that a first round had already taken place. |
| ▲ |
AP on April 18 said Iran was not ready for a new round of face-to-face talks, which again points to at least one prior face-to-face round already in the books. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 17% YES from the market implies traders still mostly expected no qualifying diplomatic meeting by April 27.
Positive update: Multiple independent reports already place direct, in-person U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad on April 11-12.
Negative update: The only serious residual risk is wording, such as whether the resolver excludes trilateral mediation formats or requires some additional official acknowledgment.
Naly estimate: 100% YES, or 100c fair value on the YES side, because the underlying condition looks already satisfied.
Alternative explanation: The market may have been anchoring to whether a second round would happen this week, not whether any diplomatic meeting happened by April 27. That is a different question, and it would explain why price stayed low despite abundant reporting on the first Islamabad session.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if the market resolves under a much narrower standard than ordinary-language reading suggests, for example by excluding the April 11-12 Islamabad session because Pakistani mediators were in the room or because the source set demands a later, explicitly bilateral confirmation.
Fresh Checks
+82c
Max Payout if Correct
Major outlets already treat Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader, but the market still seems to be pricing uncertainty about consolidation.
Causal Chain
Cause
Cause bullet: The death of Ali Khamenei forced an immediate succession decision during wartime.
↓
Effect
Effect bullet: Iranian institutions and outside reporting converged on Mojtaba Khamenei as successor, meaning the leadership change event already occurred even if power remains contested.
↓
Projection
Projection bullet: Price should be near YES unless the market is secretly resolving on a narrower test like public consolidation or a formal ceremony.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
CFR on March 9 said Iran named Mojtaba Khamenei as new supreme leader after Ali Khamenei was killed. |
| ▲ |
Axios on March 12 reported Mojtaba Khamenei's first public message as Iran's new supreme leader. |
| ▲ |
AP on April 21 wrote that after strikes killed Ali Khamenei, his son Mojtaba succeeded him. |
| ▲ |
Axios on April 21 said mediators were waiting for Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to respond to the latest proposal, treating him as the relevant decision-maker. |
| ▲ |
Time on April 22 described Iran as navigating a post-Khamenei transition and referenced public imagery of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 18% YES means traders still priced leadership continuity or a failed succession.
Positive update: Multiple later stories refer to Mojtaba as incumbent supreme leader and as the figure whose approval matters for negotiations.
Negative update: Injury, absence from public view, and committee-style wartime rule may have made traders treat succession as incomplete.
Naly estimate: 100% YES, or 100c fair value on the YES side, because the leadership title appears already transferred.
Alternative explanation: The market may be pricing political consolidation rather than simple succession. Mojtaba's absence from public view, reports of injury, and the council-centered wartime command structure can make the regime look leaderless even while the leadership title has already changed.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if the contract's resolution source requires a formal constitutional ratification or some clearly documented ceremony that major outlets have not yet seen. That is possible, but it would be a narrower standard than the market title suggests.
Fresh Checks
+76c
Max Payout if Correct
Official EIA daily spot data already printed above $110, so the market looks anchored to current price rather than the month's high-water mark.
Causal Chain
Cause
Cause bullet: War-driven Strait of Hormuz disruption and Gulf production losses pushed a large geopolitical risk premium into crude.
↓
Effect
Effect bullet: Official April daily WTI spot prints moved above $110, so the monthly high threshold appears already crossed.
↓
Projection
Projection bullet: Unless the contract uses a nonstandard benchmark, the remaining price uncertainty should not matter because the trigger has already been hit.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
EIA daily Cushing WTI data show 113.23 during the week of March 30-April 3 and 114.01 and 114.58 during April 6-10. |
| ▲ |
Guardian reporting on April 24 said Brent hit its highest level since the ceasefire as Gulf production remained far below pre-war levels and the strait stayed largely blocked. |
| ▲ |
Axios on April 19 said renewed escalation after Strait of Hormuz setbacks pushed crude higher again, underscoring the same supply-shock mechanism. |
| ▼ |
The market may be anchoring to late-April spot levels near the low 90s, but a monthly high contract resolves on the peak print, not on where oil trades now. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 24% YES from the market shows traders still leaned heavily to NO on April 24.
Positive update: Official EIA daily data already exceed $110 during the month.
Negative update: The only meaningful residual risk is benchmark or timestamp mismatch between trader assumptions and resolver language.
Naly estimate: 100% YES, or 100c fair value on the YES side, because the threshold looks already cleared.
Alternative explanation: Traders may be using current headline prices, weekly averages, or front-month futures settlement instead of the relevant April high reference. That would mechanically underprice YES even after the qualifying high was printed.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if the market resolves against a different WTI series than the one showing 113-plus April prints, such as a narrower exchange settlement or a specific intraday timestamp that never cleared $110. That is benchmark risk, not macro risk.
Fresh Checks
+63c
Max Payout if Correct
The strike was already cleared in official April prints, but traders still seem to be pricing the contract like a forward-looking call.
Causal Chain
Cause
Cause bullet: The same war-and-blockade shock tightened physical supply expectations in early April.
↓
Effect
Effect bullet: WTI cleared $105 quickly, removing most of the true event risk early in the month.
↓
Projection
Projection bullet: A 37c YES price only makes sense if traders are focused on current levels or on the wrong data series.
Key Factors
| Factor |
|---|
| ▲ |
EIA daily data already show 113.23 during the week of March 30-April 3 and 114.01 and 114.58 in the following week, comfortably above $105. |
| ▲ |
FRED's EIA-sourced weekly series shows 105.67 for the week ending April 3, which is consistent with an April regime shift into triple-digit crude. |
| ▲ |
Axios on April 19 and the Guardian on April 24 both described renewed supply fear around Hormuz, reinforcing the causal story behind the early-April spike. |
| ▲ |
Because the contract asks whether April ever hit the level, later retracement into the 90s does not undo the earlier threshold breach. |
Bayesian Calculation
Base rate: 37% YES from the market still implies most traders leaned NO on April 24.
Positive update: Official April data already sit above the strike, and by a wide margin.
Negative update: Ambiguity only remains if the market resolves on a different benchmark definition than the common WTI spot references.
Naly estimate: 100% YES, or 100c fair value on the YES side, because the high-water mark looks already locked in.
Alternative explanation: This contract is easier to misread than it looks. A trader staring at where oil trades now could conclude the move is over, but a monthly high market is backward-looking once the threshold has been breached.
What Would Make Us Wrong
We are wrong if Polymarket's resolution source keys off a specific WTI instrument that did not print above $105 even though standard Cushing spot references did. If not, the market's 37c looks stale.
Fresh Checks
Conclusion
The next catalysts are mostly mechanical, not macro. Watch whether resolvers treat the April 11-12 Islamabad session as qualifying diplomacy, whether any formal Iranian process narrows the ordinary-language meaning of leadership change, and which WTI benchmark the April oil markets ultimately cite. If those mechanics line up with standard reading and standard data sources, these four answer flips should compress sharply.
Methodology
These calls use the April 24, 2026 selected-event prices as the market snapshot, then update them with fresh reporting and official data. We translate our final probability on the quoted contract side into a cents fair value on the same binary contract, and we compare that with the market price to estimate edge. Our longer-run calibration work lives at Naly's track record.
Disclaimer
This article is analysis, not investment advice. Prediction markets can stay mispriced longer than expected, and resolution criteria can hinge on source selection, timestamp cutoffs, or wording nuances rather than broad news consensus.
