How markets get listed

A market that cannot be settled from its own written criteria is not listable. LS-1.1 — Criteria are present and substantive. Every market states, in writing, exactly how it settles. LS-1.2 — The observation time carries an explicit timezone. “Close of business” is not a time; “16:00 ET” is. LS-1.3 — No ambiguous adjudication language. Words that hand settlement to a judgment call — reasonable, roughly, approximately, expected, likely, as determined, TBD — are flagged and lower the market's quality score. LS-1.4 — Multiple-outcome markets carry at least two exhaustive outcomes. LS-1.5 — A market that settles automatically carries typed, machine-checkable criteria of the right kind for its vertical. LS-1.6 — The trading window is bounded: far enough out to trade, near enough to resolve. LS-1.7 — A market never claims to resolve before it stops trading. Edge cases are part of the criteria, not a footnote. A market that can be affected by a postponement, a revision, a tie, or a source that publishes nothing must say what happens then — and those answers are carried as typed fields you can read on the market page.

Every market names its settlement source on the market itself. A market never resolves from a source it did not name up front. LS-2.1 — Automatically settled markets bind to a registered data provider and a specific event identifier, and every outcome carries a name the result can be matched to. A market that would have to guess which outcome won is not listable. LS-2.2 — Manually settled markets name an authoritative source and when it is expected to publish. “The official announcement” without a named publisher is not a source. These settle through the ordinary admin resolution path, which carries dual control on larger markets and the standard dispute window. LS-2.3 — Missing data never becomes a guess. If the official source has not published, the market holds — it does not settle on a proxy, a projection, a media call, or a stale cached value. A provider outage can leave a displayed figure flagged as stale; stale data never settles a market. A vertical with no data shows nothing rather than inventing a number.

LS-3.1 — A title is present and states the question the market answers. LS-3.2 — No profanity, slurs, or harassing language in the title, description, or outcome names. LS-3.3 — No harassment or threat framing directed at a person. LS-3.4 — No fabricated certainty. A market may not describe an outcome as guaranteed, risk-free, or a sure thing, and may not promise a profit. Prices are probabilities, not predictions the platform stands behind. LS-3.5 — Copy stays responsible-gaming neutral: no urgency pressure, no chasing framing, no suggestion that trading is a way to solve a financial problem. LS-3.6 — No regulatory claims. Market copy never implies Drazill is licensed, regulated, registered, or approved by any authority. Drazill is pre-launch and none of that is true. LS-3.7 — Every user-facing string ships in English and French.

LS-4.1 — No minors as market subjects. LS-4.2 — No private individuals as market subjects. Person-subject markets are limited to people who have entered public life in the capacity the market is about — elected officials and candidates, corporate officers acting as officers, public figures with respect to their public role. LS-4.3 — No markets on whether a named person dies, is injured, is assaulted, or receives a diagnosis, and no markets on the casualty count of an event. LS-4.4 — No amateur, junior, or school and college competitions. This is the conservative position while the underlying question is still under legal review; it is not presented as a settled conclusion. LS-4.5 — No markets that reward causing the outcome — including markets on Drazill's own operations or on the actions of the market's creator. These screens apply to markets created after they shipped. A market that was already live is not silently voided by a new rule; if an existing market genuinely breaks one, it is removed by an explicit, recorded decision with the reason attached.

Any market whose outcome depends on a named person's conduct carries extra requirements before it publishes. LS-5.1 — The subject cannot trade their own market. A market's creator and the person who resolves it are blocked automatically, confirmed linked accounts are covered, and people who would hold non-public information about the outcome are entered on the restricted list before the market goes live. LS-5.2 — Resolution is human-in-the-loop: a person-subject market settles from a named official document, never from the generic automatic sweep. LS-5.3 — The codified rules that govern the market are linked on the market itself. LS-5.4 — Novelty markets — “will X say or do Y” — are never auto-published. They are staged for review, screened against LS-3 and LS-4, and approved explicitly. LS-5.5 — Political markets settle on validated official results only. A media projection or a network call is never binding. What this means for traders is set out on the market-integrity page.

A market passes through the same gates whether a person created it or the generation pipeline drafted it. LS-6.1 Structural — title present, criteria present and substantive, trading window bounded. A failure here means the market is not created. LS-6.2 Resolvability — the market can actually be settled: a provider binding and matchable outcomes, or a named manual source. LS-6.3 Content screen — title, description, and outcome names are screened against LS-3 and LS-4. LS-6.4 Duplicates — a near-duplicate of an existing market is rejected. Splitting liquidity across two markets asking the same question is worse for everyone in both. LS-6.5 Quality score — every market is scored from published components (liquidity depth, spread, recent volume, book balance, price extremity, source status, criteria grade). The score and any failed checks are shown on the market page. A failed check blocks approval until it is cleared or explicitly overridden on the record. LS-6.6 Jurisdiction — independently of all of the above, a market can be barred by the rules that apply where it would be offered. That check fails closed: if it cannot be resolved, the market is not listed. When a market is rejected, the reason names the rule — for example “LS-1.2” with a link back to this page — so the author knows exactly what to fix.