>>23906213
This is why I told people in previous threads to bet on NAK and avoid the betting sites. They would already be up by 20% since the entry-point which I advised.
>>23833981
"If you think that Trump is going to win the election, why wouldn't you simply buy NAK? It is already so severely depleted from the recent high. A bet can go to zero or refuse to pay out, but NAK will never to go zero. The metal in the ground isn't going anywhere. But Trump will expedite Pebble Mine's approval if he gets in office, and Pebble Mine has 100x potential. It has as much gold, silver, copper, as NEM does, the largest miner in the world, with an almost equal capacity for production, yet its mcap is only 1/100th that of NEM. Then consider that NEM might double or triple in the coming bull market, and NAK might have 200x or 300x potential."
>23834180
"As >>23832726 says, "The problem with these bets is the closing date. If it's a win via the courts, who knows when the date will be.""
Another example:
>23834288
"Other anons have already contacted betting sites who have payed out for a biden win. They responded that a win via legal dispute doesn't count"
"The problem with these bets is the closing date. If it's a win via the courts, who knows when the date will be."