Add your own answers!
Unless otherwise specified:
"Trump bans" refers to Trump or the US government, but actions, like "Trump says X" refers only to Trump. I expect the intent to be pretty clear. (If not, I reserve the right to modify the phrasing to make it clearer; ping me if you find an option unclear)
"Trump" refers to the person that was president of the US in 2017-2021.
If something is not known to have happened, unless otherwise specified, it would resolve NO. For example, the option "Trump gets COVID" resolves NO unless it is announced or sufficiently confirmed, despite the possibility that he gets covid without announcing it. The intent here is to resolve YES when the balance of evidence clearly indicates the option prediction happened.
"Trump's Second Term" is the time between Jan 20 2025 and Jan 20 2029, so long as the US continues to exist and Republicans remain in power in the White House. Trump dying doesn't end Trump's Second Term for the purposes of this market.
I reserve the right to cancel any option that doesn't seem relevant / unconnected to trump / etc. If a question is ambiguous, please ping the question creator for clarification. If they don't clarify within a few days, ping me and I'll decide how it's disambiguated.
Consensus of credible reporting will be used for this market's resolution. I am not following Trump's every move so I'd very much appreciate @s when options need to be resolved. If I don't reply within a day, you can keep repinging me, or dming me if that's a recurring issue. I try to see creator pings but may miss some.
Update 2025-17-01 (PST): - Clarification on "Trump discloses aliens are real":
Refers to Trump stating that aliens have interacted with or visited Earth.
Does not include aliens located 5 trillion light years away outside the observable universe. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-17-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Trump discloses Aliens are real refers to scenarios where:
Aliens have interacted with humans
Alien technology has been found
Aliens have visited Earth
Does not include aliens located 5 trillion light years away outside the observable universe.
Update 2025-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update from creator
The option will resolve YES only if Trump stops being acting president after he has officially become president and before his term ends.
In-ceremony irregularities, such as brief procedural moments at the start of the term, do not trigger a YES resolution.
This clarification emphasizes the spirit of the market, focusing on the scenario where Trump ceases to be acting president during his term, after already assuming the office.
Update 2025-05-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Displaying the trans pride flag illegal in any part of USA':
This will be interpreted based on an existential quantification (i.e., "there exists").
The option will resolve YES if displaying the trans pride flag becomes illegal in at least one jurisdiction within the USA.
It does not require a universal ban across all parts of the USA.
Update 2025-05-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Trump discloses Aliens are real':
Public support by Trump for the theory of panspermia, or similar theories suggesting life on Earth originated from extraterrestrial microbial life (e.g., alien bacteria on a comet), will not by itself be sufficient for this option to resolve YES.
For a YES resolution, the disclosure must meet the established criteria, such as aliens interacting with humans, the discovery of alien technology, or aliens visiting Earth.
Update 2025-05-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Trump discloses intelligent Aliens are real and on Earth. (Also counts if they were on earth but left or died out)':
For this option to resolve YES, Trump's statement does not necessarily need to be unequivocally definitive or phrased with absolute, explicit certainty.
The context and manner of how Trump makes the statement will be considered when determining if a disclosure has occurred.
Update 2025-05-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Will Trump not be acting president before his term is over, for any reason?':
The creator has clarified that the intended meaning, and proposed new phrasing for the option, is: "Someone other than Trump is active president before Trump's term is over."
This means the option resolves YES if another individual (e.g., the Vice President) formally assumes the powers of the presidency as Acting President (for example, under the 25th Amendment) during Trump's term.
Update 2025-05-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Trump extends his term past 4 years': This will resolve YES if both of the following conditions are met:
Donald Trump is still president on January 22, 2029 (or a similar date clearly after his 2025-2029 term would normally end).
This continued presidency is without an election having taken place that elected him for the period beyond January 20, 2029.
Update 2025-05-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has stated they will resolve the option 'Musk becomes head of DOGE' to N/A. See the linked comment for the creator's detailed reasoning regarding the ambiguity of the option.
Update 2025-05-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding options with asymmetric ambiguity:
If an option is structured such that a YES resolution is likely to be clear, but a NO resolution is likely to be ambiguous (potentially resulting in an N/A resolution), the creator views this as potentially creating an undesirable bias in the market's pricing.
In such situations, to maintain fairness, the creator may prefer to resolve the option as N/A or consider rephrasing/recreating the question to avoid such ambiguity-driven bias.
Update 2025-06-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Trump does a calculation in his head that involves at least 2 numbers each with at least 2 non-zero digits':
The creator has proposed to edit this option to require that Trump voices a calculation.
The calculation must still involve at least two numbers, each with at least two non-zero digits.
This shifts the criterion from an unobservable internal thought to an externally verifiable action (e.g., spoken or written).
Update 2025-06-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option about Trump performing a calculation (which the creator previously proposed to change from 'in his head' to 'Trump voices a calculation'):
The creator has affirmed that for a YES resolution, this voiced calculation should be, for example, spoken by Trump or posted by him on social media (e.g., X/Truth Social).
Importantly, the calculation must not be read by Trump directly from a teleprompter.
Update 2025-06-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Trump voices a calculation that involves 2+ numbers with 2+ non-zero digits':
For this option to resolve YES, the calculation voiced by Trump must be mathematically accurate. The stated result of the calculation must be correct.
Update 2025-06-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer option 'Second Muslim ban':
A YES resolution does not require the new travel ban to cover the exact same countries as the original ban.
The option will resolve YES if there is clear, credible reporting (e.g., from journalists, advocacy groups) that draws a direct link between the new ban and the original 'Muslim ban'.
1,000
3.00@Bayesian Is this sufficient for a YES resolution? https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/messages/2025/06/MSG_20250625_1735.html
If not, what would you look for to resolve this market YES?
@Marnix the travel ban just announced includes every country covered by the first Muslim ban, so I think this resolves as yes
@paulnewmanseyes I'm trying to catch up to this. Perplexity says
However, Syria and North Korea, which were part of the first ban, are not listed among the fully restricted countries in the 2025 order based on available reporting
Does that contradict what you said? Is it inaccurate?
The American Immigration Council also explicitly links the new ban to the earlier policy, stating, "the first travel ban, colloquially known as the ‘Muslim Ban’... Now President Trump’s travel ban is back and bigger than ever, impacting 19 countries"8. The BBC further notes this is the "second instance in which Trump has implemented travel bans," directly connecting the 2025 ban to the original9.
While not every report uses the exact phrase "second Muslim ban," there is clear, credible reporting drawing a direct line between the 2025 ban and the original "Muslim ban," and the policy is widely described in those terms by both journalists and advocacy groups
hmmm i am leaning toward it counting but giving people a day or 2 to present a case for keeping the market open
@Bayesian I’d missed the Syria absence but otherwise, yes, this tracks with my point. If we concede that there was a first Muslim travel ban then this is at least a second.
@TheAllMemeingEye thanks for the suggestion, I hope those who have already traded on that option (I wonder on what basis one would do that in any case) won’t be pissed
@Damin Ideally it would be spoken or xeeted/truthed e.g. in a rally he says "we had a 13% tariff, now we're putting on another 26%, that's 39% now, and believe me we're just getting started" while not reading from a teleprompter
@TheAllMemeingEye I'll edit to he voices a calculation that involves 2+ numbers with 2+ non-zero digits if that's ok?
@Bayesian Does it need to be accurate, and does it need to be precise? eg:
"13% tariff, 26% additional, 38% total"
"13% tariff, 26% additional, more than 30% total"
"13% tariff, 26% additional, more than 50% total"
@Damin Ideally they were meant to have different digits but arguably the option wording doesn't convey that so I'll allow it
@Bayesian But why not wait, though? There's years of developments and analyses up ahead. For example he could simply become the unambiguous head of DOGE. We're on year 1.
if under YES there's likely to be no ambiguity so it resolves normally, but under NO there's likely to be ambiguity that might lead to a N/A resolution, that biases the fair price toward YES and is just not a preferable state of affairs. I would be fine with recreating the question with a formulation that is not vulnerable to ambiguity like that though
@Bayesian In my opinion it's not a preferable set of affairs if a question that was at 99% but then turns out to be complicated gets N/Ad. That's this community being biased in favor of its own priors.
It's an ambiguous situation now that could become a less ambiguous situation, or if not then it could simply accumulate more third-party analysis about the current ambiguity. And then we do our best to dispassionately resolve it with the facts as they are when the presidential term is over. That's the norm, that's the baseline. This aberration from the baseline (reactive N/Aing) is privileging protecting a previously presumed 99% from loss.
It was down to 34% when you closed it -- that's not unfairly biased towards YES. Or if it is, then N/Aing it is even more protecting those with YES exposure.
We could just wait. Maybe it still resolves N/A in four years. Why now?
@marvingardens I hear you. My intuition is different I guess. feel free to create a market about doge leadership that people would want to bet on; i’ll cover the creation cost if you want