Anthropic IPO Polymarket December disagrees with itself by one point

The market page “Anthropic IPO by __?” was updated 2 Oct 2026 at 00:30 UTC, and that page is what Anthropic IPO Polymarket December refers to. The December 31, 2026 row is labeled 82%, with Buy Yes at 83¢. The FAQ on the same page calls December 31 the leader at 83%. That is a one-point disagreement between the row label and the FAQ. November 30, 2026 is 71% (Yes 71¢). December 15 is 81% (Yes 82¢). October 31 is 2% (Yes 2.0¢). Event volume is $4,241,095. CryptoNews on 1 Oct 2026 reported the year-end chance at 82%, which matches the row label, not the 83¢ ask.

TL;DR

What actually happened

The contract is a set of dates under one question, “Anthropic IPO by __?” Each row is a deadline, not a share-price target. The sourced rows are October 31, November 30, December 15, and December 31, all in 2026. No other deadline is added.

Read each row as a pair when the pair does not match. December 31 is labeled 82% and offered at 83¢ on Buy Yes. December 15 is labeled 81% with Yes at 82¢. November 30 is 71% with Yes at 71¢, so that pair matches. October 31 is 2% with Yes at 2.0¢, so that pair matches too, including the decimal the page used.

The FAQ does not simply echo the December 31 label. It calls December 31 the leader at 83%. The row says 82%. The Buy Yes ask says 83¢. Three digits, one date, and they do not all agree. The required reading is the plain one: the page disagrees by one point between the row label and the FAQ.

CryptoNews, dated 1 Oct 2026, reported the year-end chance at 82%. That matches the December 31 row label. It does not match the 83¢ ask, and it does not match the FAQ’s 83%. A day separates that article from the 2 Oct 2026, 00:30 UTC page update. This note does not pretend the article and the page were captured together.

Event volume is $4,241,095. That figure belongs to the event, as given, not to a single row’s private total. The facts used here do not split volume by deadline.

The page is the event. The writeup is CryptoNews. Nothing below is a company filing, and no filing number is added.

What Polymarket thinks

Displayed prices are not a finance team’s calendar. On this snapshot the December 31 row is the one the FAQ treats as the leader, and the FAQ’s number for that lead is 83%. The row’s own label is 82%. If you say “the market thinks 82%,” you are quoting the label. If you say “the FAQ says 83%,” you are quoting the FAQ. If you say “Buy Yes is 83¢,” you are quoting the ask. Anthropic IPO Polymarket December should not be collapsed into one of those three without naming which.

The other deadlines stop a sloppy year-end story. November 30, 2026 at 71% (Yes 71¢) is lower than both December rows. December 15 at 81% (Yes 82¢) sits next to December 31’s 82% label, one point under that label and even with neither the FAQ nor the December 31 ask. October 31 at 2% (Yes 2.0¢) is the short-dated row in this set, and it is not a rounding of the December prices.

This page does not rank those gaps as a trading signal. It lists them so a reader can see that “by December” is not one cell. There is a December 15 row and a December 31 row, and they are not printed as the same number.

Volume of $4,241,095 means the event has traded that amount in the figure given. It does not pick a side in the 82-versus-83 dispute. Money traded is not a vote on which display is the real probability.

Resolution text for what counts as an IPO, and whose clock defines “by” a date, is not in the facts used here. This article will not invent a settlement rule. The question string is “Anthropic IPO by __?” and the rows are the dates above.

The one-point disagreement

Say it in one breath. Row label for December 31, 2026: 82%. FAQ, calling that date the leader: 83%. Buy Yes on that row: 83¢. CryptoNews on 1 Oct 2026, year-end chance: 82%, matching the row label, not the ask.

That is the disagreement the page is carrying. It is one point, not a different candidate and not a different company. Treating the row label and the FAQ as interchangeable throws away the only conflict these sources actually contain.

Do not average them. An average would be a third number nobody printed. Do not pick the FAQ because it says “leader,” and do not pick the row because it is a row. Show the conflict. The timestamp on the page is 2 Oct 2026, 00:30 UTC. The CryptoNews date is 1 Oct 2026. A reader can believe both were accurate to their own screens and still refuse to mash them.

December 15’s 81% versus 82¢ is a similar label-versus-ask split on a different row. It is not the FAQ conflict. The FAQ line in these facts is about December 31 as the leader at 83%. Keep that sentence on December 31.

October 31 at 2% and November 30 at 71% are there so the December rows are not the only dates you mention. A story that quotes only the leader hides how the same page prices earlier deadlines.

What to do as a reader (not a trade)

Screenshot the row and the FAQ together, or do not quote a single percent. The entire point of this check is that one screen holds 82% and 83% for the same December 31 outcome. A crop of one badge rewrites the page.

This is not a trade note. It does not say 83¢ is a buy, and it does not say 82% is an edge against the ask. It does not say October’s 2.0¢ is cheap. IPO timing is a company event. A contract is a crowd price on a question. Neither one is a recommendation from this desk.

If you cite CryptoNews, say it reported 82% for the year-end chance on 1 Oct 2026, and that 82% matches the later row label rather than the 83¢ ask. Do not upgrade that article into confirmation that the FAQ is wrong, or the row is wrong. It is a second place the 82 figure was written down.

Leave filings alone. These two links are a market page and a 1 Oct 2026 odds writeup. If a thread mixes outside numbers into these percents, that thread is no longer about this snapshot.

Other posts on this site do not settle the point. The DogeOS public testnet is a separate note. The Gemini 4 Argon launch is a separate note. Neither is an IPO clock.

A careful recap of Anthropic IPO Polymarket December uses the question “Anthropic IPO by __?,” the 2 Oct 2026 00:30 UTC update, the four dated rows with both label and Yes price where they differ, the FAQ’s 83%, the volume $4,241,095, and the CryptoNews 82% from 1 Oct 2026. Then it stops. The one-point gap is the news. Closing it without a source would be fiction.

Quote Anthropic IPO Polymarket December with the one-point conflict still in the sentence. Prices move. The next person to open the event may see a different label. That does not make this snapshot wrong as a snapshot. It makes the timestamp mandatory. Keep 2 Oct 2026, 00:30 UTC attached to every percent you lift from the page, and keep 1 Oct 2026 attached to the CryptoNews line.