Arguments for "No"
Arguments in favor of a "No" resolution generally fell into three categories: strict interpretation of the market language, lack of clear media consensus, and concerns about process and precedent.
Strict Interpretation of the Market Language
Several people argued that Byron remained CEO despite being placed on leave, since he still held the title. However, not all arguments against a "Yes" resolution were accurate. For example, some incorrectly claimed that the market required a formal resignation or termination. In reality, the criteria only required that he "cease to be CEO" at any point during the resolution window.
Some questioned whether being on leave was equivalent to having left the CEO position. Democritus pushed back on this, arguing that Andy Byron was no longer acting as CEO in any functional capacity.
Verrissimus countered by suggesting that Byron could still represent Astronomer as CEO. In support, Wizard shared a screenshot of the company’s leadership page, which still listed Byron as CEO. However, others pointed out that the website had not been updated, and thus was not a reliable source.
It was also brought up that a company could, in theory, have more than one person hold the CEO title. Nevertheless, this argument was questioned for potentially going against the spirit of the market’s intent.
Several users also pointed to the broader uncertainty surrounding Byron’s role, noting that there was no clear public statement on whether he retained the title or had relinquished it.
Lack of Clear Media Consensus
Several users argued that if Byron had truly ceased to be CEO, there would have been clear and widespread reporting to that effect.
Market Price Action
Frosen argued that Byron’s leave status had already been reported hours earlier, yet the market did not resolve at that time. He suggested this undermined the logic of resolving it later without new information. However, it’s important to note that Astronomer’s official statement made no mention of Byron being placed on leave. The only reference came from a single Axios tweet citing an unnamed source.
Others countered that the subsequent announcement of an interim CEO solidified the fact that Byron was no longer serving in the role, marking a clear transition in leadership.
This was the original tweet by Axios. The claim that Andy Byron had been placed on leave came from a single source familiar with the situation, who spoke to reporter Eleanor Hawkins. Some X news accounts repeated the information, but no major outlets confirmed or elaborated on that aspect. Notably, the source was mentioned only in the tweet and did not appear in any accompanying Axios article, raising questions about its credibility and relevance to the market’s resolution criteria.
This may explain the initial spike in "Yes" shares from 50 to 80 cents, followed shortly by a drop back to 50. With the market set to run for only a week, uncertainty around Astronomer’s course of action created volatility. Additionally, the anonymous source was treated as a rumor and did not meet the resolution criteria.
Market Process and Expectations
Kalshi Comparison
The Polymarket was also compared to a similar market on Kalshi.
However, the two markets were fundamentally different. The Kalshi market used the phrase "leaves by" and required an official announcement, which clearly doesn’t include being placed on leave. Its resolution sources were limited to Astronomer, Andy Byron, and Bloomberg.
By contrast, the Polymarket asked whether Byron would "cease to be CEO for any length of time," a broader and more interpretive standard. It also stated that either resignation or firing would qualify. Polymarket’s resolution sources included Astronomer and Byron as well, but also allowed for a consensus of credible reporting, giving the market more flexibility and more room for debate.
GuyWhoTrades noted this distinction.
It was also noted that Kalshi had clarified earlier that being placed on leave does not count as leaving the position. This highlights a key difference between the two markets: Kalshi explicitly used the word "leaves," while Polymarket framed the condition as whether Byron would "cease to be CEO for any length of time."
Domer clarified that Kalshi’s interpretation was posted hours before Astronomer’s second statement announcing the interim CEO. At the time of the first statement, Byron being placed on leave was still unconfirmed and based on speculation. Kalshi had already made its position clear in advance: under its interpretation, being placed on leave would not qualify as leaving the position.
Finally, some people raised concerns about potential inconsistency between how the market would resolve on Polymarket versus Kalshi. If Polymarket aimed to stay consistent with Kalshi’s interpretation, resolving "Yes" could set a conflicting precedent.
Domer pointed out that if the Kalshi market were to resolve to "Yes" under its stricter criteria, it would raise the question of how Polymarket, with its broader language, could justify a "No."
Rushed Proposal
A common argument was that the market should not resolve yet, especially since Astronomer had stated it would share more details in the coming days.
Verrissimus supported this view, noting that the market was priced at 85 cents, not higher, suggesting lingering uncertainty.
However, others pushed back on the idea that the proposal was rushed. They pointed out that Byron had already been placed on leave, an interim CEO had been announced, and reporting indicated he was drafting a resignation letter.
Summary
Arguments in favor of a "No" resolution centered on three main themes: a strict reading of the market language, the lack of clear and confirmed media reporting, and concerns about timing and procedural consistency. Supporters of "No" argued that being placed on leave did not equate to ceasing to be CEO, and that no definitive public evidence supported such a conclusion. They also pointed to unresolved uncertainty in the market, differences with Kalshi's interpretation, and the risk of setting a precedent by resolving too quickly without sufficient confirmation.
Coming Up
With the "No" arguments outlined, we'll now turn to the core disagreement over how the market should resolve.
Last updated