id
stringlengths 8
25
| question
stringlengths 13
209
| description
stringlengths 0
7.87k
| open_date
stringlengths 19
20
| close_date
stringlengths 19
27
| resolve_date
stringlengths 19
20
| resolution
stringclasses 2
values | source
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
meta-3689
|
Will Yang get 200k donors or more in the 2024 US presidential race?
|
Resolution Criteria: [Andrew Yang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang) ran in the 2020 United States Democratic presidential primary. His controversial campaign platform included a $1k/month universal basic income. Despite strong grassroots support qualifying him for seven debates, he withdrew from the race after the New Hampshire primary.
This question will resolve positively if Andrew Yang gets at least 200,000 total unique campaign donors at any point in the 2024 United States presidential race. Otherwise, it will resolve negatively. This question is not dependent on Yang's party affiliation.
|
2020-02-21T23:00:00Z
|
2021-01-01T04:59:00Z
|
2024-11-06T16:09:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3682
|
Before January 1, 2025, will at least two public health agencies claim that COVID-19 more likely than not originated in a laboratory?
|
The beginning of 2020 has seen the emergence of COVID-19 outbreak caused by a novel coronavirus. The majority of the cases were epidemiologically linked to seafood, poultry and live wildlife market (Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market) in Jianghan District of Hubei Province. This suggests that the novel coronavirus has a possible zoonotic origin. [Some](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.08.939660v2.full.pdf) [evidence](https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200211-sitrep-22-ncov.pdf) suggests the virus might have originated from bat sub-species. So far, scientists have been unable to conclusively determine the zoological origins of COVID-19.
In a [recent (but undated) preprint](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WEf2GYT_eh4zErSMd9eIwo1Uo_m0PRZk/view?usp=sharing), two Chinese scientists claim that the COVID-19 strain of coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan:
> In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.
The preprint implicates the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the only BSL-4 virology lab in China. [Scientists have previously expressed concerns](https://www.nature.com/news/inside-the-chinese-lab-poised-to-study-world-s-most-dangerous-pathogens-1.21487) about the organisation's ability to monitor the lab.
Other scientists, such as Trevor Bedford, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle has disputed the theory of the laboratory origins of COVID-19, [claiming](https://www.ft.com/content/a6392ee6-4ec6-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5): "There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find". *ETA (2021-07-06) to clarify, this doesn't 'dispute all lab-origins, just those that involve genetic modification.*
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if before January 1, 2025 at least two of the public health agencies listed below claim that it is more likely than not that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a Chinese virology laboratory. For this question we will consider only statements by the following public health agencies:
- [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention](https://www.cdc.gov/) (including the [Epidemic Intelligence Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic_Intelligence_Service))
- The [European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/home) (including the [Health Threat Unit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Threat_Unit))
- [World Health Organization](https://www.who.int/)
- [The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention](http://www.chinacdc.cn/en/)
- The [Centre for Health Protection](https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/index.html)
- [Robert Koch Institute](https://www.rki.de/EN/Home/homepage_node.html)
- [The National Institute of Infectious Diseases](https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/)
- [Public Health England](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england)
- [The National Centre for Infectious Diseases](https://www.ncid.sg/About-NCID/Pages/default.aspx)
- [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Korea](https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Centers+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention+Korea&meta=)
- [The Public Health Agency of Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health.html)
In case multiple subdivisions of any of the above agencies make assessments that COVID-19 more likely than not originated from a Chinese virology laboratory, this will only count as single claim made by a single public health agency.
Assessments made by these agencies must broadly state that it is more likely than not that COVID-19 originated from a Chinese virology or biology laboratory, after having been released accidentally or deliberately. Synonyms for probability assessments must be considered by an admin to be broadly consistent with at least a 50% chance. Examples of such synonyms include "probably", "likely", "with high probability" and "almost certainly"
|
2020-02-19T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-05T23:42:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3631
|
Will the federal minimum wage increase in the United States before 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: The [federal minimum wage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States) in the United States is currently $7.25 an hour, and was most recently changed in 2009.
This question resolves positively if at least three reliable media outlets report that the federal minimum wage increased from $7.25 any time before January 1st 2025. Otherwise, it resolves negatively.
This question can be resolved at any time.
|
2020-02-11T08:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T07:59:00Z
|
2025-01-05T01:22:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3606
|
Will a Wealth Tax be passed if a Democrat is elected president in 2020?
|
Resolution Criteria: Bernie Sanders appears to have tied for most delegates in the Iowa primary, greatly boosting his chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for president. A [Weath Tax](https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/) has been one of his signature issues. Other candidates (including Elizabeth Warren) have also endorsed a version of a Wealth Tax. Even if Sanders or Warren was elected, however, such a law would face numerous challeges to being passed, primarily in the US Senate where 60 senators would presumably be necessary to overcome a filibuster.
---
Conditional on the Democratic candidate being elected president of the United States (regardless of whether or not it is Bernie Sanders), will a Wealth Tax be passed (in their first term)?
---
For the purposes of this question a policy will be considered a Wealth Tax if it:
1) Could theoretically be applied to at least one person living in the US at the time of passage.
2) The amount paid is based on a formula related to a person's net-worth, not their income (with some assets possibly being excluded)
3) Has a rate of at least 0.13% (the lowest rate in Switzerland).
4) Includes (at a mininum) privately held companies and stock in public corporations as a basis for the wealth tax.
---
If the Republican candidate (presumably Donald Trump) or another candidate not running as a Democrat wins, this question resolves ambiguously.
For example, if Bernie Sanders runs as an independent against Joe Biden and wins, the question resolves ambiguously.
This question will resolve positively when such a law has been passed through congress and signed by the president, regardless of whether or not it takes effect (for example because of legal challenges).
This question will resolve negatively if the Democratic candidate is elected, but no such law is passed before the expiration of their first term - either January 20, 2025, or the date that a new President is appointed who is not a Democrat, whichever comes first.
|
2020-02-11T08:00:00Z
|
2024-06-03T04:00:00Z
|
2025-01-21T16:26:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3605
|
Will Medicare for all be passed if a Democrat is elected president in 2020?
|
Bernie Sanders appears to have tied for most delegates in the Iowa primary, greatly boosting his chances of becoming the Democratic nominee for president. [Medicare for all](https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/) has been one of his signature issues. Other candidates (including Elizabeth Warren) have also endorsed a version of Medicare for all. Even if Sanders or Warren was elected, however, such a law would face numerous challeges to being passed, primarily in the US Senate where 60 senators would presumably be necessary to overcome a filibuster.
Resolution Criteria: For the purposes of this question a policy will be considered Medicare for All if it:
1a) Is widely reported in the media as "Medicare for All"
or
1b) Covers the Essential Health Benefits as described in Obamacare
2) Covers all citizens of the United States who currently reside in the USA regardless of age.
3) Does not require people to pay a individual premium or purchase private insurance to be considered covered.
3a) This question could still resolve positively if people are allowed (but not required) to have supplemental insurance.
3b) A plan that requires a modest copay (limited to total payments of no more than $3000/year) to recieve care would still resolve positively
If the Republican candidate (presumably Donald Trump) or another candidate not running as a Democrat wins, this question will resolve as **Ambiguous**.
This question will resolve as **Yes** if such a law has been passed through congress and signed by the president, regardless of whether or not it takes effect (for example because of legal challenges).
This question will resolve as **No** if the Democratic candidate is elected, but no such law is passed before the expiration of their first term - either January 20, 2025, or the date that a new President is appointed who is not a Democrat, whichever comes first
|
2020-03-05T08:00:00Z
|
2025-01-20T05:00:00Z
|
2025-01-21T16:24:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3484
|
Will the number of people in extreme poverty in 2020 be lower than the number in 2015?
|
Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than $1.90 a day, measured in 2011 Purchasing Power Parity prices [(World Bank, 2017)](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25141/9781464809613.pdf). In 2015, 9.98% of the World's population or 734.5 million people lived in extreme poverty [(World Bank, 2019)](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/344401569259571927/pdf/September-2019-PovcalNet-Update-Whats-New.pdf).
According to [World Bank Data](https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world#$chart-type=bubbles&state$time$value=2006&delay:121.71612903225821;&entities$;&marker$select@;&opacitySelectDim:0.3&axis_x$use=indicator&which=income_per_person_gdppercapita_ppp_inflation_adjusted&scaleType=log&zoomedMin=282&zoomedMax=119849&domainMin:null&domainMax:null;&axis_y$use=indicator&which=extreme_poverty_percent_people_below_190_a_day&scaleType=linear&zoomedMin=0&zoomedMax=93&domainMin:null&domainMax:null;&size$use=indicator&which=population_total&extent@:0.022083333333333333&:0.4083333333333333;&domainMin:null&domainMax:null;&color$use=property&which=world_6region;;;&ui$chart$trails:false), extreme poverty has been declining by roughly 1% per year since the 1980's. However, [there is evidence](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/09/19/decline-of-global-extreme-poverty-continues-but-has-slowed-world-bank) that the decline in global extreme poverty has been slowing.
Resolution Criteria: **Will we see fewer than 734.5M people in extreme poverty, worldwide in the year 2020, according to World Bank estimates?**
This question resolves positively if the first estimates of the number in extreme poverty in the year 2020, published by the World Bank, is below 734.5M. In case the numbers are not published by the World Bank before the end of 2025, figures from other data sources, such as those listed on the [data sources page](https://www.metaculus.com/help/prediction-resources/#data-sources), may be consulted.
|
2020-01-14T08:00:00Z
|
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2023-10-03T23:16:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3469
|
Will the United States institute a military draft by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: The United States has employed military conscription during five separate conflicts in American history, most recently in the Vietnam war, ending in 1973. If the United States enters another large war, it might begin conscripting soldiers once again.
This question resolves positively if *any* military personnel\* are conscripted\(^†\) for the military in the United States before January 1st, 2025. Otherwise, it resolves negatively.
---
\* <small>"military personnel" here includes the Coast Guard.</small>
\(^†\) <small>"conscription" here does not include the Individual Ready Reserve or Stop-Loss activation.</small>
|
2020-01-14T23:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T07:59:00Z
|
2025-01-04T01:19:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3460
|
Will there be at least 200 companies developing technologies to defeat aging by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: In a publicly available spreadsheet, accessible [here](http://agingbiotech.info/companies/), Karl Pfleger has maintained a list of for-profit companies that are confirmed to be working to slow or reverse aging in humans. His criterion for including a company is outlined [here](http://agingbiotech.info/about/what_counts_as_aging.html), and only includes those companies that aim to deliver a product that will undo or slow down molecular damage from aging. Anti-aging cosmetic companies do not count by this criterion.
As of January 6th, 2020, there are 126 companies listed in the spreadsheet, but progress has been rapid in recent years. More companies were created from 2016-2018 than were created in the entire period listed before that, from 2009-2015. If growth continues at its current pace, then the number of companies will surpass 200 by 2025. However, if the number does not reach 200, this would imply that growth must have slowed down at some point.
This question resolves positively if there are at least 200 companies listed on [this](http://agingbiotech.info/companies/) spreadsheet (or the spreadsheet that is a clear successor to that one) on January 1st 2025. If there are fewer, it resolves negatively.
If the spreadsheet is no longer being maintained, the question resolves ambiguously.
|
2020-01-12T23:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T07:59:00Z
|
2025-01-01T05:01:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3439
|
Will the Conservative Party form the first government after the next UK general election?
|
Resolution Criteria: [The Conservative and Unionist Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)) is a centre-right political party in the United Kingdom. The governing party since 2010, it is the largest in the House of Commons, with 365 Members of Parliament. Its domination of British politics throughout the twentieth century has led to it being referred to as one of the most successful political parties in the Western world.
The Conservatives have won (i.e. formed the first government after the election) the last four elections in the UK, and have increased their share of the popular vote in every election since 2001.
[The most recent general election in the UK was held on 12 December 2019.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election) Unless changes are made to the lifetime of a Parliament, the next election will take place on or before 12 December 2024.
This question asks: **Will the first government to be formed after the next UK general election be formed by the Conservatives, either as a majority government, minority government, or as the senior partner in a formal coalition?**
This question resolves positively if the first government to be formed after the next UK general election is as described above, and negatively if any other government is formed.
This question refers specifically to the first government formed after the next general election. In the event that a new government is formed without an election (e.g. because of a vote of no confidence) this question shall not apply to that event.
|
2019-12-30T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-08T07:03:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3528
|
Will a geoengineering act of Congress become US federal law by the end of 2024?
|
Resolution Criteria: Climate change geoengineering, defined by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” [(Shepherd et al. 2009)](https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf). Geoengineering involves the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, or attempts at reflecting more energy away from the planet to counter warming [(Markusson et al., 2013)](http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper5markusson-et-algeinccwikipediadataset.pdf). Geoengineering is often presented as a complement, and sometimes alternative, to climate mitigation and adaptation.
There are serious and complex governance issues which need to be resolved if geoengineering is ever to become an acceptable method for moderating climate change. It would be highly undesirable for irreversible global geoengineering to occur before appropriate governance mechanisms are in place. The Royal Society has published a set of geoengineering governance principles, known as The Oxford Principles, which aims to guide the collaborative development of geoengineering governance, from the earliest stages of research, to any eventual deployment. These principles are:
- Principle 1: Geoengineering is to be regulated as a public good
- Principle 2: The public should participate in geoengineering decision-making
- Principle 3: Geoengineering research and results should be publicly disclosed
- Principle 4: There should be independent assessments of the impacts
- Principle 5: governance systems should be developed before geoengineering methods are deployed
As of September 2019, two geoengineering bills and one resolution have been introduced in Congress. These bills are the following:
1. [Geoengineering Research Evaluation Act of 2017](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4586?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22%5C%22Climate+engineering%5C%22+%5C%22geoengineering%5C%22+%5C%22Solar+radiation+management%5C%22+%5C%22Stratospheric+Particle+Injection%5C%22+%5C%22Stratospheric+aerosol+injection%5C%22+%5C%22Marine+cloud+brightening%5C%22+%5C%22Ocean+sulfur+cycle+enhancement%5C%22%22%7D&s=3&r=1). This bill recommends
a research agenda for advancing understanding of [albedo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo) modification strategies that involve atmospheric interventions, such as cloud modification; and a report that provides specific guidance on the governance mechanisms for the proposed research agenda.
2. [American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009](https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/1462?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22%5C%22Climate+engineering%5C%22+%5C%22geoengineering%5C%22+%5C%22Solar+radiation+management%5C%22+%5C%22Stratospheric+Particle+Injection%5C%22+%5C%22Stratospheric+aerosol+injection%5C%22+%5C%22Marine+cloud+brightening%5C%22+%5C%22Ocean+sulfur+cycle+enhancement%5C%22%22%7D&s=2&r=2). This bill requires the Secretary of Energy to establish an Advisory Committee on Geosciences and Geoengineering Education to advise the Secretary in education and training in the subsurface geosciences and engineering.
Neither the Geoengineering Research Evaluation Act of 2017 nor the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 became legislation. So far, the U.S. has not enacted legislation that are explicitly related to geoengineering.
**Will a geoengineering act of Congress become US federal law by the end of 2024?**
This questions resolves positively if a geoengineering bill that is introduced in the House of Representatives and/or the Senate is subsequently enacted as legislation (by being signed by the U.S. president, or through other means) before or on 31/12/2024. For the purpose of this question, a geoengineering bill is any bill reported by the relevant [Congress website search](https://www.congress.gov/quick-search/legislation?wordsPhrases=%22Climate+engineering%22+OR+%22geoengineering%22+OR+%22Solar+radiation+management%22+OR+%22Stratospheric+Particle+Injection%22+OR+%22Stratospheric+aerosol+injection%22+OR+%22Marine+cloud+brightening%22+OR+%22Ocean+sulfur+cycle+enhancement%22&include=on&wordVariants=on&titles=on&summaries=on&actions=on&congresses%5B0%5D=all&legislationNumbers=&legislativeAction=&sponsor=on&representative=&senator=&searchResultViewType=expanded&q=%7B%22bill-status%22%3A%22introduced%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22all%22%7D). This search involves the following terms:
> "Climate engineering" OR "geoengineering" OR "Solar radiation management" OR "Stratospheric Particle Injection" OR "Stratospheric aerosol injection" OR "Marine cloud brightening" OR "Ocean sulfur cycle enhancement"
|
2020-01-29T00:00:00Z
|
2024-05-31T22:00:00Z
|
2025-01-05T01:23:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3433
|
Will an ocean be fertilised with at least 50 tonnes of iron, as part of a single geoengineering effort, by the end of 2023?
|
Resolution Criteria: Iron fertilisation is the introduction of iron to iron-poor areas of the ocean surface to stimulate phytoplankton production to thereby draw carbon out of the atmosphere and into the ocean. Phytoplankton converts some of the CO2 dissolved in the ocean into biomass, which is then transported into deep sea by ocean circulation and gravity; effectively resulting in the long-term sequestering of carbon [(Yoon et al., 2018)](https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/5847/2018/bg-15-5847-2018.pdf).
Researchers worldwide have conducted 13 major iron-fertilization experiments in the open ocean since 1990 [(Tollefson, 2017)](https://www.nature.com/news/iron-dumping-ocean-experiment-sparks-controversy-1.22031). All have sought to test whether stimulating phytoplankton growth can increase the amount of carbon dioxide that the organisms pull out of the atmosphere and deposit in the deep ocean when they die. Determining how much carbon is sequestered during such experiments has proved difficult, however, and scientists have raised concerns about potential adverse effects, such as [toxic algal blooms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmful_algal_bloom).
**Will an ocean be fertilised with at least 50 tonnes of iron, as part of a single geoengineering effort, by the end of 2023?**
----
This question resolves positive if a single geoengineering effort to fertilise an ocean with the intention of stimulating biomass growth successfully introduces 50 tonnes of iron into an ocean by the end of 2023.
The fertiliser must contain the equivalent of 50 tonnes of iron, which contains [895335 moles of iron](https://www.convertunits.com/from/moles+Iron/to/grams). Hence, fertilisers that contain compounds of iron must also contain at least 895335 moles of iron. For example, [136 tonnes of iron sulfate (FeSO4)](https://www.convertunits.com/from/moles+Iron+Sulfate/to/grams) contains roughly 895335 moles of iron. In the case the fertiliser is a mixture of different iron-containing compounds, the weight of iron shall be determined by the same method for the individual compounds multiplied by the fraction of its weight to total weight.
A single geoengineering effort is here defined as a project in which the relevant actors act on behalf of various organisations (e.g. national government, research organisation) that coordinate in precise terms on the employed geoengineering methods as well as the the extent to, and the duration for which these are to be deployed.
|
2019-12-26T23:00:00Z
|
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T05:00:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3431
|
Will the Dai stablecoin maintain a value of roughly $1 until July 2023?
|
Resolution Criteria: One of the biggest problems with cryptocurrencies right now is their volatility. So-called 'stablecoins' aim to solve this by maintaining a stable price, usually compared to an asset like the US Dollar.
The currency Dai, created by the organisation [MakerDAO](https://makerdao.com/en/) and running on the [Ethereum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum) blockchain, is a popular stablecoin that tries to always be worth $1. Instead of being backed by a reserve of dollars, Dai can be created by anyone by locking up some ether (or other cryptocurrencies) as collateral for a loan in Dai. The ether is only released when the user pays back their loan, plus a Stability Fee. Dai holders can also earn the Dai Savings Rate which is funded by the fees. The Stability Fee and Dai Savings Rate are adjusted to keep the value of Dai at $1.
Its predecessor Sai (formerly called Dai) has successfully kept a stable price throughout 2018 and (as of December 2019) still maintains it, despite volatility in the price of ether. The new version, Multi-Collateral Dai, was released in November 2019.
**Will Multi-Collateral Dai (or a future version of it) be worth around $1 consistently up to July 2023?**
This resolves negatively if either Dai is worth over $1.10 continuously for any 2 week period or if it is worth less than $0.90 continuously for any 2 week period before July 15 2023 at 12:00 AM GMT, according to a website like [Coinmarketcap](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/multi-collateral-dai/).
If MakerDAO has an Emergency Shutdown, it also resolves negatively.
It resolves positively otherwise.
If a newer version is released, then this question will be about the new version if and only if there is a direct way to exchange Dai for the new coin at a 1:1 rate (which was the case when Sai was upgraded to Multi-Collateral Dai).
|
2019-12-31T23:00:00Z
|
2023-07-14T23:00:00Z
|
2023-07-15T12:00:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3429
|
Will 100 kilotonnes of sulphur be injected into the atmosphere, as part of a single geoengineering effort, before 2024?
|
Climate change geoengineering, defined by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” [(Shepherd et al., 2009)](https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf). Solar radiation management (SRM) supposes that deliberate addition of aerosol to the stratosphere could reduce climate risks by partially offsetting the radiative forcing from accumulating greenhouse gases. The deployment stratospheric sulfate aerosols have been proposed as a method to reflect more energy away from the planet, by increasing the planetary albedo, and thereby cool the planet, ameliorating some of the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations [(Rasch et al., 2008)](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2008.0131).
According to [(Rasch et al., 2008)](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2008.0131), sulphate aerosols have at least two cooling effects:
> In the stratosphere they act to reflect incoming solar energy (the ‘aerosol direct effect’), but also act as [cloud condensation nuclei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei), influencing the size of cloud droplets and the persistence or lifetime of clouds (the ‘aerosol indirect effect’) and thus the reflectivity of clouds.
Using the [Mount Pinatubo eruption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo) as an analogue, [Crutzen, 2006](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9101-y) estimated a constant inflow of 5 teragrams (Tg) of Sulphur per year would be sufficient to balance the warming associated with a doubling of CO2. [Rasch et al., 2008](http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1029/2007GL032179) suggested that 1.5 Tg S per year might suffice to balance the GHG warming. Finally, [Robock et al., 2008](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD010050) arrived at a figure of between 1.5 and 5 Tg S per year.
For reference, the net inflow of sulphur to the stratosphere is believed to be of the order of 100 gigagrams of per year when no volcanic eruptions occur [(Rasch et al., 2008)](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2008.0131).
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** If it is credibly reported that 100 gigagrams (i.e. 100,000,000,000 grams) of sulphur is intentionally injected into the atmosphere in a single year as part of a single geoengineering effort, before January 1, 2024. For the injection to qualify as a geoengineering effort, reporting must strong reveal evidence that that the parties responsible for the effort have the intent to bring about long-term effects on the regional or global climate.
For the purpose of this question, sulfur emissions are specified according to the equivalent weight of sulphur. For the purpose of this question we'll use the conversion of sulfur emissions and burdens found in [(Rasch et al., 2008)](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2008.0131): 100 Gg S = 300 Gg of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) = 300 Gg of Sulfate (SO₄2) = 400 Gg aerosol particles (Gg = gigagram).
Moreover, a single geoengineering effort is defined as a project in which the relevant actors act on behalf of a various organisations (e.g. national government or research organisation) that coordinate in precise terms on the employed geoengineering methods as well as the the extent to, and the duration for which these are to be deployed
|
2019-12-23T23:00:00Z
|
2023-12-31T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T02:12:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3409
|
Will our global atmospheric CO₂ concentration over the 2020 to 2023 period be on path to limit warming to 1.4°C by mid-century?
|
Resolution Criteria: A Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is a greenhouse gas concentration trajectory adopted by the IPCC for its [fifth Assessment Report (AR5)](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/) in 2014. These four pathways are prominently considered in IPCC climate modelling and research, which describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on how much greenhouse gases are emitted in the years to come.
Pathway RCP4.5 is a scenario of long-term, global emissions of greenhouse gases, short-lived species, and land-use-land-cover which stabilizes global CO₂ atmospheric concentration at approximately 650 ppm CO2-equivalent, in the year 2100 without ever exceeding that value [(Thomson et al., 2011)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4).
Pathway RCP4.5 limits mid-century (2046–2065) global mean temperature increase to 1.4°C with a likely range of 0.9°C to 2.0°C (95% confidence interval). Moreover, it limits end-of-century (2081–2100) global mean temperature increase to 1.8°C with a likely range of 1.1°C to 2.6°C (95% confidence interval) [(IPCC, 2013)](http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf).
Over the 2020 to 2023 period (inclusive), the RCP4.5 corresponds to an average of 414.52 parts-per-million (ppm) of global CO₂ atmospheric concentration each year [(Meinshausen et al. 2011)](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z). Over the 2024 to 2027 period, it corresponds to an average of 423.89 ppm of global CO₂ atmospheric concentration each year (ibid.).
**Will the average global CO₂ atmospheric concentration be less than 414.52 parts-per-million (ppm) over the 2020 to 2023 period (inclusive)?**
---
**Resolution**
This question resolves positively if the arithmetic mean of the annual mean CO₂ concentration over the 2020 to 2023 period (inclusive) is less than or equal to 414.52 ppm, as reported by [Earth System Research Laboratory](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html).
**Data**
- [Data on global CO₂ atmospheric concentration may be found here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EdkfP-2bW1vbM47yj9LWSRXiNGryTGCa-DWCDu23Dz8/edit?usp=sharing).
- [Data on atmospheric concentration along RCP pathways may be found here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G0lBi3-GdU8oGCqzMyXs1VywGZCuY70eFyn2ty4a2Ag/edit?usp=sharing). It may also be [downloaded from here](http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/).
|
2019-12-16T23:00:00Z
|
2023-12-30T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T02:53:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3241
|
Will the IAU rework its definition of planetary status by Jan 1, 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: The [International Astronomical Union](https://www.iau.org/) defines a planet [1] as a celestial body that
1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. is massive enough per material strength to be an ellipsoid (in hydrostatic equilibrium) and,
3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.
A debate has emerged in the planetary sciences over whether the community should instead embrace a purely geophysical definition of a planet (a substellar body in hydrostatic equilibrium), stated in more detail here: [2]. This point of view has been gaining some traction, e.g. in Metzger et al. 2018 [3].
The chief concerns with the IAU's definition are that it excludes exoplanets (they do not orbit the sun), small bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g. Pluto, Ceres, Titan, Quaoar), and that "clearing the neighborhood" is an imprecise definition that has many caveats (e.g. coorbital bodies/quasi-satellites). There have been attempts to rigorously define orbital clearing (e.g. Margot 2015 [4]), but they have not yet been adopted by the IAU.
The chief concerns with the geophysical definition are that it elides dynamical concerns (which are integral to planet formation), includes ellipsoidal satellites (e.g. Titan, Triton, Ganymede) as planets, and will result in having >50 planets, with that number growing as time goes on.
This debate conceals a difference in methodological approach - considering whether small, ellipsoidal (currently) subplanetary bodies* are more interesting in particular (as geophysical entities, like Earth) or in aggregate (as orbital populations, like sub-ellipsoidal asteroids). These concerns are, to first order, native to planetary geoscientists and planetary astronomers/dynamicists respectively. The geophysical and IAU definitions are both used in the literature, again employed ~along subdisciplinary lines.
This now brings us to the question: given the ongoing debate and reality of publishing differences the planetary sciences,
**will the IAU revise its definition of a planet before 2025**?
---
**Resolution details**
IAU's 2006 definition is:
> A “planet” is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
We'll refer to this as the "original definition". This question resolves positively if any of the following occurs:
- Any of the Parts (a), (b) or (c) of the original definition are substantially revised; or
- Any of the Parts (a), (b) or (c) of the original definition are removed; or
- Another part not included in the original definition is included that requires a planet to have an additional property that is not implicit in parts (a), (b) or (c).
If more than one of these conditions occur, the question also resolves positively.
[1] [IAU Definition](https://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau0603/)
[2] [Geophysical Definition](https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/eposter/1448.pdf)
[3] [Metzger et al. 2018](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04115)
[4] [Margot 2015](https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06300)
*currently characterized by the IAU as "dwarf planets"
|
2019-12-27T23:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T06:01:00Z
|
2025-01-21T16:18:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3238
|
Will Turkey be a NATO member continuously until January 1, 2025?
|
The [North Atlantic Treaty Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. The organization implements the [North Atlantic Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty) that was signed on 4 April 1949. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.
[In 1952, Turkey joined NATO.](https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/greece_and_turkey_join_nato_london_22_october_1951-en-c193a825-2f1c-4e12-b26d-d35fabc6559f.html)
In recent years, Turkey's leader [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan) has been widely [criticised as an authoritarian.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan#Authoritarianism) Further, Turkey's [military incursions into Syria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria) have caused some to [ask if Turkey will continue to be a NATO member, or if it could be suspended or expelled.](https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/)
However, no existing provision in the North Atlantic Treaty provides for the suspension or expulsion of a NATO member.
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if Turkey is a NATO member continuously from October 1, 2019 to January 1, 2025. The question will resolve as **No** if Turkey is suspended or expelled from NATO, or if it withdraws of its own accord, at any time before January 1, 2025.
If before this question resolves NATO is dissolved, or changed in structure or operation so substantially that Metaculus administrators believe it is no longer prudent to continue this question, this question shall resolve as **Ambiguous**
|
2019-10-19T23:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-02T02:00:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3159
|
Will WeWork file for bankruptcy protection before January 1, 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: WeWork (officially "The We Company") is an American commercial real estate company that provides shared workspaces for technology startups, and services for other enterprises. Founded in 2010, it is headquartered in New York City. [As of 2018, WeWork manages 46.63 million square feet of commercial real estate.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-surpasses-jpmorgan-as-biggest-occupier-of-manhattan-office-space-1537268401)
[In 2019, WeWork attempted to go public in an IPO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeWork#2019), seeking a [valuation as high as $47 billion.](https://www.businessinsider.com/weworks-nightmare-ipo?r=US&IR=T) However, [concerns about corporate governance](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wework-corporate-governance-nightmare-204330915.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIrC3q_C9YN2lZ0eRlApJAfGJnNEtpzzX2iJy7AodPkGkJY6O1FFMOhHk30lBFqBx2vfPE_rSu4VEDsDgjx8kv2bSDcHiPCLBkWjb0lr60rvFU5Knzj8nQWEyoqznhMfmlDWDfonPEi_NRsW7yycUOq9DmU4tOMSC9Td2xdsyIkt) and the company's [$47 billion in lease obligations](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-02/wework-ipo-lease-obligations-and-an-ugly-balance-sheet) led to a dramatic reduction in the company's proposed IPO valuation, which fell [to as low as $10 billion.](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-wework-ipo-valuation-exclusive/exclusive-wework-considers-ipo-valuation-of-as-low-as-10-billion-sources-idUKKCN1VY1PE) Additionally, [the CEO of the company resigned at the request of existing investors.](https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/24/20882034/wework-ceo-adam-neumann-stepping-down-chairman) [Ultimately, the company filed to withdraw its IPO prospectus.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/wework-withdraws-ipo-prospectus-as-new-co-ceos-delay-offering)
The company remains unprofitable, and [had losses of nearly $2 billion in 2018.](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/business/dealbook/wework-loss-billion.html)
**Will The We Company, or any parent company thereof, file for either Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States prior to 1 January 2025?**
Resolution is by citation of a relevant court filing or credible media reports in the financial press. The applicable filing need not lead to a grant or ruling by any court or regulatory body; it must only be submitted in order for a positive resolution.
|
2019-10-04T23:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2023-11-07T00:00:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3118
|
Will Extinction Rebellion, or a splinter group, be declared a terrorist organisation by a G7 country before 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: Extinction Rebellion has organised protests to disrupt traffic in cities around the world, and had people mass arrested. It is conceivable that the main group or a splinter group could begin to engage in more extreme activities and be declared a terrorist organisation by a G7 country.
Resolves positively if the government of a G7 country declares Extinction Rebellion, or a splinter group, a terrorist organisation before 1/1/2025. Resolves ambiguously on 1/1/2025 if a claimed splinter group is declared a terrorist organisation but there is no consensus that it grew from Extinction Rebellion.
|
2019-09-28T23:00:00Z
|
2020-12-30T14:00:00Z
|
2025-01-03T16:06:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3117
|
Will a new land speed record be set by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: The [land speed record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record) (or absolute land speed record) is the highest speed achieved by a person using a vehicle on land. There is no single body for validation and regulation; in practice the Category C ("Special Vehicles") flying start regulations are used, officiated by regional or national organizations under the auspices of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA).
The land speed record (LSR) is standardized as the speed over a course of fixed length, averaged over two runs (commonly called "passes"). Two runs are required in opposite directions within one hour, and a new record mark must exceed the previous one by at least one percent to be validated.
The current land speed record was set on October 15, 1997 by Andrew Duncan Green, a British Royal Air Force fighter pilot, who achieved a speed of 1,228 km/h (763 mph) with the [ThrustSSC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC), which became the first land vehicle to officially break the sound barrier.
This question asks: **will the ThrustSSC's land speed record be surpassed before 1 January 2025?**
Resolution is by press release from the FIA, or credible media reports, indicating that a new land speed record has been set and validated.
|
2019-09-24T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T11:08:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-3109
|
Will General Electric (GE) file for chapter 7 or chapter 11 bankruptcy before September 18, 2024?
|
[Harry Markopolos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markopolos) is known for having reported the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme. Now he has put out a [report](http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2019/8/15/2019_08_15_GE_Whistleblower_Report.pdf) claiming that General Electric is conducting large-scale accounting [fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric#Fraud_allegations). Several analysts have defended GE, describing the report’s analysis as [uncompelling](https://www.barrons.com/articles/wall-street-comfortable-with-ges-accounting-shrugs-off-markopolos-report-51567525632) and [incorrect](https://seekingalpha.com/news/3496236-deutsche-bank-buying-ge-fraud-report). GE has denied these charges, and described Markopolos’ report as [market manipulation](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge-accounts-ceo/ge-ceo-calls-markopolos-report-market-manipulation-and-false-idUSKCN1V525O) (Markopolos will [receive a cut](https://youtu.be/2VCtB3E0JB0?t=433) from trading profit from an unnamed hedge fund).
GE has been [charged before](https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-178.htm) for accounting fraud.
Resolution Criteria: Note that GE being criminally convicted of fraud is not the same as having a financial situation that is insolvent. This question aims at the latter.
|
2019-09-19T23:00:00Z
|
2024-09-18T15:00:00Z
|
2024-09-18T04:01:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2807
|
Will the UK housing market crash before July 2023?
|
Resolution Criteria: As of 17 June 2019, the [Rightmove House Price Index](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/content/uploads/2019/06/Rightmove-House-Price-Index-17-June-2019.pdf) indicates that the average cost of a property in the UK is £309,348; just £91 short of the all-time record reached in June 2018.
In any month *before* July 2023, will the Rightmove House Price Index indicate that the average cost of a property is equal to or less than £216,543; a nominal decline of 30% from June 2019 levels?
Resolves positively if so, negatively if not, and ambiguously if the Rightmove House Price Index is discontinued or its methodology is changed so substantially that administrators believe it is no longer reasonable to continue this question.
|
2019-06-27T22:00:00Z
|
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2023-07-17T15:44:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2795
|
Will NASA's SLS launch a person to the Moon before 2024?
|
Earlier this year US Vice President Mike Pence instructed NASA to launch the first woman and the next man to the surface of the Moon by 2024. The mission is supposed to be launched aboard the agency's Space Launch System (SLS) with help from commercial partners. However, many have speculated that a deadline of 2024 for a crewed mission to the lunar surface is beyond ambitious and is just not feasible.
The [Space Launch System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System) (SLS) is an American Space Shuttle-derived super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle. It is a primary part of NASA's deep space exploration plans, including the planned [Orion Program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)) crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
[Artemis 3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_3) is a planned 2024 mission of NASA's Orion spacecraft utilising the SLS, to be launched on the Space Launch System. As of May 2019, Artemis 3 may become the first human landing on the Moon since Apollo 17, with the accelerated timeline proposed by the 2020 NASA budget to land a woman on the Moon by 2024.
Resolution Criteria: This question resolves positively when any spacecraft launched using NASA's SLS containing living humans comes into physical contact with the moon before the end of 2023. In line with the resolution criteria of [a previous question by @Jgalt](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1619/when-will-the-first-manned-spacecraft-touch-the-surface-of-any-planet-dwarf-planet-or-moon-other-than-earth-earths-moon-or-mars/), the landing need not last for any significant period of time and the crew need not survive impact for a positive resolution, but must be alive when the impact occurs.
See also [When will NASA's SLS carry humans to the Moon?
](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/2818/when-will-nasas-sls-carry-humans-to-the-moon/
|
2019-06-23T22:00:00Z
|
2023-12-31T11:59:00Z
|
2024-01-01T05:00:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2671
|
Will the United States land humans on the moon again before 2025?
|
On March 26 2019, Vice President of the United States Mike Pence [announced that it was the policy of the United States Government to land Americans on the moon within five years 'by any means necessary.'](https://news.sky.com/story/us-signals-new-space-race-trump-wants-astronauts-back-on-the-moon-within-five-years-11676176)
[Announcing the goal at a meeting of the National Space Council,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxvFsqevSdw) Pence dismissed the goal of achieving a human landing by 2028 as ['just not good enough,'](https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1110592064079777792) urging NASA to achieve the goal four years earlier, claiming ['we're better than that.'](https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1110592064079777792)
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if a mission of the United States, or any corporation incorporated in the United States, lands one or more living humans on the Moon at any time between January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2025.
The crewed landing must occur before 00:00 UTC on January 1, 2025, and at least one crew member must be a human alive at the time of landing. A successful return to Earth or any other conclusion of the mission is not necessary for a positive resolution.
A positive resolution requires that the mission is *more than 50%* funded by the Federal Government of the United States or by any agency thereof, or by any agency of the several States, or by any legal or natural person(s) resident (or incorporated) in the United States, or by any combination of the aforementioned entities.
A mission in which such entities contribute exactly 50% or less than 50% of the funding does not count as a US mission for the purposes of this question
|
2019-03-30T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T02:05:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2645
|
Will a S&P500 tech boom surpass the dotcom bubble for one quarter or more before 2025?
|
Electricity, internal combustion engines,
and semiconductors facilitated automation in the last century, but AI now seems poised to automate many tasks once thought to be out of reach, from driving cars to making medical recommendations and beyond.
However, measured productivity growth has actually declined by half over the past decade.[[2]](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24001) To some extent, this may be evidence that information technology and other conventional stuff (non-informational inputs or outputs) aren't actually so cheaply or widely substitutable.[[3]](https://www.nber.org/papers/w21547.pdf)
The prospects of growth of tech and automation may also be constrained by [Baumol’s “cost disease”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease): sectors with rapid productivity growth are able to charge lower prices and subsequently have their share of GDP decline, whilst those with relatively slow productivity growth experience increases in their share of the value contributed to the economy. This might effectively cap the rate of growth of the value of tech as a proportion of the total economy.[[4](https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/AI.pdf)]
Brynjolfsson et al.[[5]](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24001.pdf) have argued that recent progress in AI and automation might well be radically productivity enhancing, but this might yet go largely unnoticed because of an implementation lag: it takes considerable time to be able to sufficiently harness technologies with broad potential application that they qualify as general purpose technologies.
With the exception of the brief spike during dotcom bubble around the year 2000, the proportion of valuations contributed by tech companies in the [S&P500](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index) has been trending up only very slowly (~0.3 percentage points per year since 2003, see [data](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yaOCwE97SXzgnKJzmw74tK_njaO-NP3Vg5YuvHZeFBM/edit?usp=sharing)).
Hence, with the exception of the dotcom bubble, we have arguably have not seen substantial evidence of investors suspecting a big trend-deviating disruption in the extent of productivity enhancing automation.
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if the average sector weighting of the IT industry of the S&P500 surpasses 30% for either a three consecutive month period or a 90 consecutive days period, before the end of 2024. For the purpose of this question, we shall refer to the current weightings of the [SPDR S&P 500 ETF](https://us.spdrs.com/en/etf/spdr-sp-500-etf-SPY)
|
2019-03-27T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2024-08-13T00:00:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2616
|
Will any Member State leave the Eurozone before 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: The [Eurozone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone), officially called the euro area, is a monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union (EU) member states which have adopted the euro (€) as their common currency and sole legal tender. The monetary authority of the eurozone is the Eurosystem. [The euro is the second largest and second most traded currency in the global foreign exchange market after the United States dollar.](https://www.bis.org/publ/rpfx13fx.pdf)
The Eurozone consists of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. Other EU states (except for Denmark and the United Kingdom) are obliged to join once they meet the criteria to do so.
No state has left, and there are no provisions to do so or to be expelled.
Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City have formal agreements with the EU to use the euro as their official currency and issue their own coins, and Kosovo and Montenegro have adopted the euro unilaterally, but these countries do not officially form part of the Eurozone and do not have representation in the European Central Bank (ECB) or in the Eurogroup.
*** Will any Member State leave the Eurozone before 2025? ***
This question will resolve as **Yes** if, on or before January 1, 2025, any full Member State of the Eurozone (as of February 10, 2019) ceases to use the Euro as its official currency.
The list of Eurozone member states recognized for this question is: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
Note that this question *does not* apply to Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City, Kosovo, Montenegro, or any states that come to be Eurozone members after February 10, 2019; only those expressly listed in the paragraph above. This question also *does not* apply to the overseas territories of countries which have agreements to use the euro (Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, and Saint-Barthélemy.)
Resolution is by citation of a press release from the Government or Central Bank of any of the relevant countries, or by credible media reports in the financial press, to the effect that the relevant country actually starts the process of phasing out the Euro as its official currency before 2025, and replacing it with either an existing currency (including but not limited to the US dollar, British pound, Japanese Yen and other reserve currencies extant as of 2019) or introducing (or re-introducing) a national currency of its own. A decision to temporarily leave the Eurozone for a fixed period or until certain conditions are met shall also suffice for a positive resolution.
|
2019-02-16T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T16:21:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2599
|
Will any of the 20 most valuable public companies in the United States (As of January 2019) file for bankruptcy protection before 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: As of close of trading on January 28 2019, the 20 most valuable public companies in the United States are as follows.
(Name, ticker symbol, market cap in USD billions)
1. Microsoft Corporation MSFT 806.62
2. Amazon.com Inc AMZN 800.88
4. Alphabet Inc GOOG / GOOGL 760.23
4. Apple Inc AAPL 739.27
5. Facebook Inc FB 354.29
6. Johnson & Johnson JNJ 345.95
7. JPMorgan Chase & Co JPM 345.44
8. Exxon Mobil Corp XOM 301.62
9. Bank of America Corp BAC 290.79
10. Walmart Inc WMT 281.98
11. Berkshire Hathaway Inc BRK.B 273.85
12. UnitedHealth Group Inc UNH 256.64
13. Visa Inc V 238.97
14. Wells Fargo & Co (New) WFC 234.51
15. Procter & Gamble Company (The) PG 233.95
16. Pfizer Inc PFE 228.50
17. Verizon Communications Inc VZ 227.55
18. AT&T Inc T 223.22
19. Chevron Corporation CVX 214.33
20. Intel Corporation INTC 214.2
Note: Alphabet has three classes of equity securities, of which two are currently admitted to the markets, GOOG and GOOGL. The figure listed above is the combined value of both traded classes of equity securities.
If any of these companies were to file for bankruptcy protection, it would be one of the [largest corporate bankruptcies in the history of the United States.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States#Largest_bankruptcies)
This question asks: **Before 01 January 2025, will any of the aforementioned companies file for bankruptcy protection?**
For a positive resolution, one of the companies mentioned in this question body text (or successor companies resulting from either rebranding (i.e. a simple name change), mergers or demergers, **as long as the successor company represents at least 50% of the original company by market capitalization at the time it becomes independent, and that is a publicly traded company**) must file for bankruptcy protection in the United States of America under either of the following chapters of the United States Bankruptcy Code: [Chapter 7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_States_Code), [Chapter 11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code).
Resolution is by citation of relevant court filing or by credible media report in the financial press. The applicable filing need not lead to a grant or ruling by any court or regulatory body; it must only be submitted in order for a positive resolution.
|
2019-02-03T08:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T02:42:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2577
|
Will Scotland leave the United Kingdom before 2025?
|
[A referendum on Scottish independence from the United Kingdom took place on 18 September 2014.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum) The referendum question, which voters answered with "Yes" or "No", was "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
The "No" side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. The turnout of 84.6% was the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the United Kingdom since the introduction of universal suffrage.
Since 2014, the [United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum) On June 23 2016, 17,410,742 (51.89%) voters answered the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" with "Leave," and 16,141,241 (48.11%) voters answered with "Remain." The "Leave" side thus won, having accrued more individual votes than any political party or referendum side in British political history.
However, voters in Scotland did not, in aggregate, support leaving the EU. In fact, Scotland was the most pro-remain region of the UK with [62% of Scottish voters opting for "Remain."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Regional_count_results) (Gibraltar had a higher Remain vote share, but was counted as part of South West England.) [You can see a map of the results here.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg/871px-United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg.png)
The fact that voters in Scotland are widely opposed to leaving the EU, and the fact that broader Scottish nationalist sentiment has not significantly waned since the 2014 referendum, has led to speculation that Scotland may once again attempt to leave the United Kingdom in the near future.
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if the de facto Head of Government of Scotland formally declares to be legally independent of the United Kingdom, effective at any point between January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2025.
If, for example, there is a vote to become independent that is held before that date, but (if answered in the affirmative) it is not actually implemented until January 1, 2025 or later, this question shall resolve negatively. That is, independence itself must actually happen before that date, not just a vote to become independent.
In the case of a dispute as to the status of Scotland, the legal independence of Scotland must be recognized by either the Head of Government or Head of State of the United Kingdom, **or** by at least 50% of United Nations Member States.
In the event that a referendum is called to determine the outcome of this matter before January 1, 2025, this question shall be closed 10 days before the vote is held, but shall not resolve until either a positive or negative resolution results.
In the case that the geopolitical entities known as the United Kingdom or Scotland cease to exist at any time before Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, this question resolves ambiguously
|
2019-01-21T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T02:05:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-2518
|
Will there be another VEI level six (or higher) volcanic eruption on Earth before 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: [The Volcanic Explosivity Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index) (VEI) is a relative measure of the explosiveness of volcanic eruptions. It was devised by Chris Newhall of the United States Geological Survey and Stephen Self at the University of Hawaii in 1982.
Volume of products, eruption cloud height, and qualitative observations (using terms ranging from "gentle" to "mega-colossal") are used to determine the explosivity value. The scale is open-ended with the largest volcanoes in history given magnitude 8. A value of 0 is given for non-explosive eruptions, defined as less than 10,000 m^3 (350,000 cu ft) of tephra ejected; and 8 representing a mega-colossal explosive eruption that can eject 1.0×1012 m^3 (240 cubic miles) of tephra and have a cloud column height of over 20 km (66,000 ft).
The scale is logarithmic, with each interval on the scale representing a tenfold increase in observed ejecta criteria, with the exception of between VEI 0, VEI 1 and VEI 2.
An eruption rated level six on the VEI would involve ejecta volume of at least 10 km3, a plume height of at least 20 km, and substantial troposhperic and stratospheric injection of material.
Three eruptions ranking level six have occurred since 1900: [Santa Maria in 1902](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Mar%C3%ADa_(volcano)#1902_eruption), [Novarupta in 1912](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novarupta#Eruption_of_1912), and [Mount Pinatubo in 1991](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo).
The most recent level seven eruption occurred at [Mount Tambora in 1815](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora), and the most recent level eight eruption [took place about 26,500 years ago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oruanui_eruption).
By 2010, the [Global Volcanism Program of the Smithsonian Institution](http://volcano.si.edu/) had catalogued the assignment of a VEI for 7,742 volcanic eruptions that occurred during the Holocene (the last 11,700 years) which account for about 75% of the total known eruptions during the Holocene. Of these 7,742 eruptions, about 49% have a VEI of ≤ 2, and 90% have a VEI ≤ 3.
**This question asks: Before 1 January 2025, will any eruption rated level six, seven, or eight occur anywhere on Earth?**
This question resolves positively if any competent authority on volcanism credibly assesses that an eruption occurring after this question opens but before 1 January 2025 is rated level six, seven or eight on the Volanic Explosivity Index.
In case of major controversy in the scientific community over this assessment, the resolution shall rest upon the VEI level assigned to the event by either the US Geological Survey or the comparable authority of the nation in which the event takes place. In the event that these numbers differ, the higher of the two shall be taken as correct for purposes of resolving this question.
|
2019-01-11T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T02:42:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1663
|
Will the USA's Labor Force Participation Rate be lower in 2023 than in 2018?
|
My thanks to Jgalt and Uncle Jeff for [inspiring](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1643/will-the-us-unemployment-rate-reach-10-before-2023/#comment-7888) this question.
The labor force participation rate (LFPR) is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort. It is sometimes opposed to the unemployment rate, since it includes people who for various reasons are not in the job market.
It hovered around 59% until the late 1960's, then grew as high as 67% in 2000 before shrinking back to 63% in recent years. It seems to be roughly stable since 2014. (graph and data [here](https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns11300000)).
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if the US' Labor Force Participation rate for the calendar year 2023 is lower than 2018, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, series ID [LNS11300000](https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns11300000). The quantities considered are the 12-month averages for 2018 and 2023.
If the rates are the same (within 0.1 percentage points), this question will resolve as **ambiguous**.
If BLS do not report data for the entire year 2023, this question wil resolve as **ambiguous**
|
2018-12-21T23:00:00Z
|
2023-12-31T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-31T14:42:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1650
|
Will the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution be amended or repealed before 2025?
|
The Second Amendment to the [United States Constitution](https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf) protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
An amendment to the Constitution is an improvement, a correction or a revision to the original content approved in 1788. To date, 27 Amendments have been approved, six have been disapproved and thousands have been discussed.
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.
The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.
The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Following a number of firearm-related tragedies in recent times, and with significant debate regarding the role of government in society and the prudence of maintaining this individual right to own firearms, numerous individuals and groups have floated the possibility of amending or repealing the Second Amendment.
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if, at any time between January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2025, the Second Amendment is repealed, amended, or modified in any way through the proceduce in [Article Five](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the US Constitution
|
2018-12-20T23:00:00Z
|
2024-12-31T21:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T02:49:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1645
|
Before 2025, will an asteroid or comet estimated to be at least 50 meters in diameter be detected to be due to collide with Earth before 2100?
|
Resolution Criteria: A stony asteroid 50 meters in diameter, with a density of 2600 \(kg/m^3\), speed of 17 km/s, and an impact angle of \(45°\) [would have a kinetic energy equivalent to of 5.9 megatons of TNT](https://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEarth/ImpactEffects/) at atmospheric entry, and 5.2 megatons of TNT at an airburst altitude of 8.7 km (29,000 ft). This airburst energy is approximately 350 times that of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Needless to say, it would be a problem if this kind of event were to take place anywhere near a populated area.
To give a sense of scale, an object believed to be rougly 50 meters in diameter created [Meteor Crater / Barringer Crater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater) in Arizona approximately 50,000 years ago.
**This question asks: Will an asteroid or comet estimated to be at least 50 meters in diameter be detected on a trajectory that would lead to a collision with Earth, with the collision due to occur before 1 January 2100, and the detection made before 1 January 2025?**
For a positive resolution, the detection must be announced or corroborated by either the International Astronomical Union, NASA, ROSCOSMOS, CNSA, JAXA, ESA, or a similarly competent authority on astronomy. Additionally, there must be at least 95% confidence with regard to the size, and collision date estimates. The collision probability needs to be at least 95% in the absence of human-initiated attempts to intervene, as confirmed by at least one competent authority on astronomy.
|
2018-12-17T23:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-24T13:53:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1640
|
Will lab-grown complex vital organs be used successfully in humans before 2025?
|
More than 30,000 organ transplants are performed each year in the United States alone, according to 2015 data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Around the world, the total was estimated to be 135,860 in 2016 according to the [Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation](http://www.transplant-observatory.org/).
However, the demand for donor organs often significantly exceeds the supply, meaning that many patients have to wait for a significant period of time before receiving an acceptable donor organ. Many, tragically, die waiting.
In response to this problem, multiple efforts are underway around the world to create acceptable donor organs in laboratories. There have been reported successes for simpler tissue structures including [vaginas](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26885335), [urethras](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12666171), and [bladders](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45470799), but so far there have been no attempts in humans for hearts, livers, kidneys or lungs - though [lab-grown lungs have been implanted into pigs](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-transplant-lab-grown-bioengineered-lungs-pigs) and [functional human “mini-kidneys”](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/human-kidney-grown-mouse-stem-cells-urine-medical-first-scientists-functioning-tissue-cells-a8202856.html) capable of filtering blood to produce urine have been grown in mice.
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if before Janury 1 2025, any human lives without the assistance of medical life support for at least 100 days after the implantation of a lab-grown heart, liver (or a substantial part of the liver), kidney or lung.
All transplantations need to be considered by medical professionals to have a substantial positive effect on the patient's health, relative to the counterfactual case in which the patient did not receive the transplantation.
For the purposes of this question, 'lab-grown' includes organs cultivated inside a living organism so long as the organs are not naturally ocurring; that is, not merely an organ taken from a non-human and implanted in a human without there having been substantial bioengineering involved to alter the harvested organs
|
2018-12-16T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-21T16:28:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1631
|
Will Cuba still be a communist state in 2023?
|
Resolution Criteria: Since 1965, Cuba has been governed by the Communist Party of Cuba. Cuba is one of few remaining Marxist–Leninist socialist states, where the role of the vanguard Communist Party is enshrined in the Constitution.
As of December 09 2018, only the following countries are one-party states in which the institutions of the ruling Communist Party and the state have become intertwined (and they are generally adherents of Marxism–Leninism in particular): People's Republic of China, Republic of Cuba, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
**Will Cuba still be a communist state as measured by having a below 50 score on the [Index of Economic Freedom](https://www.heritage.org/index/)?**
This question resolves positive if the 2023 [Index of Economic Freedom](https://www.heritage.org/index/) assigns an index value below 50, indicating "repressed economic activity". Currently, Cuba [has an index value of 31.9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom), meaning a negative resolution requires an 18.1 increase in the index value. This resolves ambiguous if the Heritage Foundation, or the Wall Street Journal does not publish the Index of Economic Freedom values for 2023.
*Edit (14/12/18) the resolution criteria now depends on the [Index of Economic Freedom](https://www.heritage.org/index/) assigned to Cuba in 2023.*
|
2018-12-12T00:00:00Z
|
2021-11-25T00:00:00Z
|
2023-03-01T06:27:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1534
|
Will the incarceration rate in the US drop below 500 per 100,000 by 2022?
|
In [April 2018](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf) the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that the incarcerated US population has continued to decrease. This population includes offenders under the jurisdiction of state or federal prisons or held in local jails. For 2016, the incarceration rate for all ages is 670 out of 100,000 US residents. (If you are interested in a world-wide comparison please see the [World Prison Brief](http://www.prisonstudies.org/)).
Currently the incarceration rate is at its lowest since 1993 and has been decreasing since reaching a peak in 2009. [Incarceration Rate, 1980-2016](https://www.bjs.gov/content/keystatistics/images/7_Incarceration_rate_1980_2016.png)
Will the rate in the US drop below 500 per 100,000 by 2022 (all ages)? Note that the last time the rate was this low was in 1991.
Resolution Criteria: ***Question resolves as affirmative if the incarceration rate, as reported by the BJS, drops below 500 per 100,000 for at least one year within 2019-2022.***
|
2018-11-15T05:00:00Z
|
2019-03-01T05:00:00Z
|
2024-08-30T15:20:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1478
|
Will the Extremely Large Telescope see first light by the end of 2024?
|
Resolution Criteria: The Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) is an extremely cool project. Here are the basics, courtesy [Space.com's reporting](https://www.space.com/40746-extremely-large-telescope.html):
> In the mountains of Chile sits the site of what will become the largest optical telescope in the world. The Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) will have a primary mirror made up of almost 800 individual segments and will be capable of collecting more light than all of the existing 8-to-10-meter telescopes on the planet, combined.
Among [other things](https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/telescopes/a20264196/foundation-construction-extremely-large-telescope-chile/):
> [the ELT] will allow astronomers to probe the earliest ages of the universe, study ancient galaxies, measure exoplanet atmospheres, and answer dozens of lingering questions in astronomy
Unsurprisingly, astronomers and space geeks everywhere are champing at the bit to put the pedal to the metal. But the project is big... and expensive. The original price tag was [$1.34 billion](https://www.space.com/27930-european-extremely-large-telescope-construction-approved.html). And delays on these projects can derail deadlines easily. Witness the [debacle](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope-delay-human-error/563903/) that has been NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.
*** Will the mission arrive on time? Will the ELT see first light in 2024? ***
Resolution is positive if by major media account "first light" (which is a pretty standard term) has been achieved by start of 2025.
|
2018-10-07T07:00:00Z
|
2019-12-31T08:00:00Z
|
2025-01-02T01:43:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1459
|
By 2023, will there be evidence for a neurological correlate of human consciousness?
|
What is consciousness? I once asked my boss, a neuroscientist who tolerated my philosophical predilections, what he thought about the nature of consciousness. He chuckled and said “it doesn’t exist”. Instead of trying to be cute and retort about self-defeating claims I asked what he meant. He went on to detail how consciousness has been glorified, placed upon a pedestal, and that it simply cannot be everything that people say it is.
I still don’t know what consciousness is. Nor do my colleagues in [philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/).
You might think that we can simply say that consciousness arises from the sophisticated physical organization of human brains. This leads to the [Hard Problem of Consciousness](https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/), a phrase which philosopher David Chalmers coined back in the 1990’s. Think about the most beautiful moment sunset that you have ever seen. Now explain that experience in terms of neurons firing. It seems to many that physicalism (roughly, the idea that the mind is just the brain) is poorly equipped to explain the subjective quality of our experience.
Fear not, we aren’t going to get lost in philosophical ruminations. We are going to predate upon [a bet made in 1998 between neuroscientist Christof Koch and philosopher David Chalmers](http://consc.net/misc/consciousnesswager.pdf). One night after a conference Koch bet Chalmers “a case of fine wine that within the next 25 years someone would discover a specific signature of consciousness in the brain.” ([pg. 26](http://consc.net/misc/consciousnesswager.pdf)). The idea is that Koch and his team will find a neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) “a minimal physical signature in the brain sufficient for a specific subjective experience” (ibid). That is, Koch’s team hopes to discover a small set of neurons with intrinsic properties. “Intrinsic properties could be, say, a neuron’s pattern of electrical firing, or genes regulating the production of various neurotransmitters.“ (ibid). According to the conditions of the bet, Koch has until June 20, 2023 to do so.
Resolution Criteria: Resolution: The resolution is going to piggyback upon the bet between Chalmers and Koch. The question resolves as affirmative if Chalmers pays Koch, negative if Koch pays Chalmers, and ambiguous if neither concedes by end of 2023.
|
2018-09-27T07:00:00Z
|
2019-01-01T08:00:00Z
|
2023-06-24T20:06:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1384
|
Qualia Research Institute Question Series: Will MDMA be approved for the treatment of PTSD by 2025?
|
*This is the first in a [three-part series](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/?search=cat:series--qualia-research-institute) of questions suggested by the [Qualia Research Institute](https://qualiaresearchinstitute.org/), with particular thanks to Andrés Gómez Emilsson, whom you can find blogging at the always interesting [QualiaComputing.com](https://qualiacomputing.com/)*
The three other questions in the series are:
- [Will MDMA be approved for the treatment of PTSD by 2025?](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1384/)
- [Will Psilocybin be a clinically approved treatment for end-of-life anxiety by 2027?](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1385/)
- [Will we see evidence that Piracetam is a more effective Alzheimer's treatment than Memantine by 2021?](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1386/)
Not to be confused with the street drug formulations that (sometimes) contain MDMA along with various adulterants, pure MDMA has long been indicated as effective therapy for a range of conditions. Although the hurdles to a radical reversal in drug policy (MDMA is a Schedule 1 drug in the US, meaning officially speaking, it has no approved therapeutic use) are numerous, there have been a number of positive developments of late.
In 2017, MDMA was designated a "breakthrough therapy". [From CBS News:](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/us/ecstasy-molly-ptsd-mdma.html)
>According to the FDA's website, a designation of "breakthrough therapy" simply means the agency will expedite the review of the drug and potential approval. The status is granted when "preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement" over other available therapies.
And in January, the ensuing clinical trials were wrapping up. [From Newsweek:](https://www.newsweek.com/mdma-ptsd-therapy-enters-final-round-trials-could-be-approved-us-and-canada-786309)
>The final round of clinical trials for MDMA assisted psychotherapy is kicking off in Vancouver, leading the way for Canada and the United States to approve the drug for therapeutic use as early as 2021.
>The third and final phase of trials gets underway after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designated MDMA as a “breakthrough therapy” for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in August 2017, ensuring that it will work with advocates to complete the last phase quickly.
The [results](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(18)30135-4/fulltext) of these trials have been extremely promising, and have [spurred renewed interest](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mdma-ecstasy-mdma-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-veterans-a8332561.html) in the therapy.
>Large-scale trials, which will include up to 300 participants at 14 sites, may not be able to replicate the success of previous trials, which were limited to a few dozen patients. But so far, results are encouraging. Nearly all patients saw clinically significant reductions in symptoms, and a majority saw such drastic reductions that they no longer met the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. In the 12 months after MDMA therapy, PTSD symptoms generally continued to decrease.
>Side effects, including anxiety, headache, fatigue, muscle tension and insomnia, were generally minor and limited to the days following the MDMA sessions.
>Other researchers, intrigued by the results, are starting their own studies of MDMA therapy, including the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The non-profit Multidisciplinary Association For Psychedelic Studies is funding the trials, and plans to spend nearly $27M in an attempt to gain prescription approval for the drug by 2021.
**With the Breakthrough Therapy "fast track" designation on their side, will MAPS succeed? Or will bureaucratic red tape, pharmaceutical industry muscle, deep-seated distrust of psychedelic drugs and/or disappointing test results push the acceptance of MDMA as an FDA-approved treatment for PTSD further into the future?**
***The team at the Qualia Research Institute have generously gotten the ball rolling by providing their own prediction that it is 80% likely the question will resolve positive.***
Resolution Criteria: To resolve positively, a credible media story or a MAPS-affiliated press release must report that MDMA has been approved as a prescription drug in the US prior to January 1st, 2025.
|
2018-08-25T07:00:00Z
|
2020-08-28T05:01:00Z
|
2025-01-05T00:53:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1378
|
Will Israel be the fourth country to soft-land on the Moon?
|
Resolution Criteria: Even though the [Google Lunar X Prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Lunar_X_Prize) ended without a winner, many of the competitors continue in their attempts to reach the moon. One of them is [SpaceIL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceIL#Status), a nonprofit organization in Israel. They plan to launch on a Falcon 9 in December, as a secondary payload, and reach the Moon in February 2019.
According to [Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-moon-probe-lunar-landing-2018-8):
>SpaceIL, a nonprofit organization founded by Israeli billionaire Morris Kahn, is on track to pull off the first commercial lunar landing early next year. This would make Israel the fourth country to soft-land a spacecraft on the moon; only the US, Russia, and China have landed robots there. (Japan, India, and Europe have crashed probes into the lunar surface, though.)
A close competitor is India's Chandrayaan-2, the subject of another Metaculus [question](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/975/will-indias-chandrayaan-2-mission-to-the-moon-blast-off-before-2018-is-out/).
**Will Israel be the fourth country to soft-land a spacecraft on the Moon?**
Resolution is positive if SpaceIL (or, much less likely, another Israeli effort) is the next to achieve a gentle landing of a spacecraft on the Moon; the spacecraft must be intact after landing, but no conditions are placed on its operation.
|
2018-08-24T07:00:00Z
|
2018-12-01T05:00:00Z
|
2023-08-23T12:39:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-1043
|
Will any state impose a state-wide soda tax by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: For decades, a brutal war has been raging in the world of nutrition science.
In the 1960s and 1970s, believers that dietary fat was the enemy--whose ranks included University of Minnesota's [Ancel Keys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys) and Harvard's [Fred Stare](https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/)--sparred aggressively with those like [John Yudkin](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/10634081/John-Yudkin-the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html) in England and Dr. [Alfred Pennington](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1848046/) (and his disciples, like Dr. Robert Atkins), who thought sugar was the far greater dietary evil.
The anti-fat crowd won that political battle and got enshrined the idea the "low fat is healthy" in monuments like the first [U.S. Dietary Guidelines](https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/history.htm).
Nearly 40 years since those guidelines radically shifted how Americans eat, the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. Dietary fat's witnessing something of a [renaissance](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/fat-is-back-and-premium-butter-makers-are-taking-the-cream). While dietary sugar is once again being seen as a [malign force](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM).
To that end, policymakers and politicians are beginning to take action to restrict sugar or at least make it less palatable to consumers.
In the UK, a recently passed [sugar tax](http://theconversation.com/sugar-tax-what-you-need-to-know-94520) has big implications: "From now on, drinks with a sugar content of more than 5g per 100ml will be taxed 18p per litre and 24p for drinks with 8g or more."
In Mexico, one of the most obese nations in the world, activists managed to [pass a soda tax](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-sugar-tax-mexico) a few years ago.
And in the U.S., cities like Berkeley have already passed similar measures. The [Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-a-soda-tax-the-solution-to-americas-obesity-problem/2015/03/23/b6216864-ccf8-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?utm_term=.3b197915d0d3) shares some key details:
> Berkeley is the first city to impose a tax and the first U.S. experiment with a tax that’s probably high enough to put a dent in consumers’ soda habits. Depending on the product, a penny-per-ounce tax can be heavy; when Coke goes on sale at my supermarket, I can buy 24 cans — 288 ounces — for about $4. A $2.88 tax would mean a 72 percent price increase. For higher-priced energy and fruit drinks, the percentage increase would be smaller. According to Lisa Powell, a professor of health policy and administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago, a penny-per-ounce tax would be about equal to a 17 percent price increase overall. She says that would result in about a 20 percent consumption decline.
And then there's this [amazing research](http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2018/April/After-soda-tax-philadelphians-40-percent-less-likely-to-drink-soda-every-day/):
> Almost immediately after the “soda tax” went into place, Philadelphians were 40 percent less likely to drink soda every day, a new Drexel University study found
Whether or not you approve of their nutritional philosophy or tactics, the anti-sugar forces are clearly on the move, and it seems likely that more sugar taxes are in the offing.
*** But will we see a whole state (e.g. California) pass into law a tax on soda – with the explicit, written intent to disincentivize soda consumption – by Jan 1, 2025?***
|
2018-07-09T07:00:00Z
|
2019-01-01T05:59:00Z
|
2025-01-04T23:45:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-981
|
Will cannabis be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act before 2024?
|
Cannabis is legal for medicinal purposes in 29 states, with CBD (limited THC content) legal in 17. It's recreationally legal in 9 states, as well as DC. That leaves only four states with no approval.
In 2018, a number of states will be voting to legalize either recreational or medicinal marijuana. If trends continue, soon half the country will allow recreational and only a few (likely the same four as of now) will be against it completely, if that.
Canada (fellow G7 participant, and America's neighbor) will be legalizing it federally this year.
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve positively if, before January 1, 2024, marijuana has been officially classified as something other than a schedule I drug in the US
|
2018-06-22T07:00:00Z
|
2023-12-31T07:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T05:00:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-953
|
Will Mike Pence be elected president of the United States in 2024?
|
Resolution Criteria: [Mike Pence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence) is the 48th vice president of the United States. He was previously the governor of Indiana and a member of the US House of Representatives. Some have [speculated](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-24/mike-pence-s-2024-presidential-campaign-has-already-begun) that Pence will run for president in 2024.
**Will Mike Pence be elected president of the United States in 2024?**
This question resolves positive if Mike Pence wins the US presidency and is sworn into office by February of 2025.
|
2020-05-08T06:00:00Z
|
2022-08-02T02:00:00Z
|
2024-11-25T18:35:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-685
|
Will the U.S. get rid of the penny by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: If you haven’t seen CGP Grey’s ["Death to Pennies"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UT04p5f7U) video, it’s worth the watch. Funny, and mildly enraging. It raises a great question that deserves answering: Why DOES the U.S. Mint continue to produce pennies, year after year?
After all, it [costs more to mint](http://time.com/money/4618271/penny-cost-make-worth/) these coins than they’re worth as currency.
You can’t use them in vending machines, parking meters or arcades.
They accumulate in jars and slow transactions.
Yes, technically, you can throw them in a fountain and make wishes on them. And they have more intrinsic value than, say, Bitcoins. But they’re also choking hazards. Per [CBS news](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/children-and-choking-hazards/):
> Coins, especially pennies, are a major choking hazard and since adults rarely pick them up, they are plentiful on the ground for children.
Many people have had enough. Last April, U.S. Senators John McCain and Mike Enzi reintroduced a piece of legislation called the Currency Optimization, Innovation, and National Savings Act (a.k.a. the COINS Act), which would have finally put the penny in a well-deserved grave and saved $16 billion to boot.
[AOL reported](https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/02/two-senators-announce-plan-to-eliminate-penny-replace-dollar-bi/22022666/) that
> Although it is unclear why that legislation did not pass, the Wall Street Journal pointed out in 2013 that, according to the Federal Reserve, dollar coins were so unpopular that about $1.4 billion worth of them had been produced but were not being used.
At some point, our elected officials will clearly get it together and bury the penny. But when? Specifically, will the U.S. stop minting pennies before 2025?
|
2018-03-19T07:00:00Z
|
2022-01-01T08:00:00Z
|
2025-01-02T01:56:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-684
|
Will someone hold their breath for more than 30 minutes before 2025?
|
The Guinness World Records reports that freediver Aleix Segura Vendrell currently (as of March 2018) holds the [world record for breath holding](http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-time-breath-held-voluntarily-(male)), clocking in at a mind-numbing 24 minutes, 3:45 seconds on February 28, 2016.
That busted other previous records, such as magician David Blaine’s impressive 17 minute breath hold. Amazing details on Blaine’s feat are available in this [TED Talk](https://www.ted.com/talks/david_blaine_how_i_held_my_breath_for_17_min)
All very nice. But bioengineering will allow us to push the record up—possibily, way up. Some techniques, like “lung packing,” are already being put to use by daredevils. [Per Deadspin](https://deadspin.com/how-long-can-humans-hold-their-breath-1467541916):
> This [lung packing] consists of inhaling the very largest breath possible, and then, without exhaling, puffing your cheeks full of more air and attempting to force that air down into your lungs. You are literally stretching out your lungs so that they can hold more air.
More exotic ideas, like the so-called [“Aquaman Crystal”](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-create-crystal-which-could-allow-us-to-breathe-underwater-9772871.html) are promising.
Some extreme atheletes and freedivers are no doubt experimenting and [pushing the limits](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/11/nicholas_mevoli_freediving_death_what_happens_to_people_who_practice_holding.html).
And there are documented cases on the record of people surviving without oxygen for long periods of time. As the [BBC reports](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140714-how-long-can-you-go-without-air):
> When US toddler Michelle Funk fell into an icy stream in 1986, she survived an estimated 66 minutes underwater, preserved by deep hypothermia that reduced her metabolic rate to almost nothing.
Funk’s case was a freak accident. But by 2025 will a person voluntarily hold his or her breath for more than 30 minutes? (The attempt must comply with Guinness Record standards.)
Resolution Criteria: This question will resolve as **Yes** if, before January 1, 2025, a person voluntarily holds their breath for more than 30 minutes, according to Guinness World Records or a body with similar standards and rigor.
|
2018-03-19T07:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T08:00:00Z
|
2025-01-04T23:24:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-669
|
Will KIC 9832227 go "red nova" – observable to the naked eye on Earth – by 2024?
|
Resolution Criteria: Astronomer Larry Molner, presenting at the American Astronomical Society, boldly offered that the binary star system known as KIC 9832227 is a ticking time bomb that may have [already exploded](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/see-star-explode-2022-nova-cygnus-skywatching-space-science/).
The "Boom Star" as Molner [calls it](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4091604/Mark-calendars-dazzling-supernova-appear-sky-2022-predict-astronomers.html):
> will be visible as part of the constellation Cygnus, and will add a star to
the recognisable Northern Cross star pattern.
Molner's hunch is based on observations of a similar system, V1309 Scorpii, that supernovaed in 2008.
*** Will this bold prediction come to pass? ***
Result is positive if independent astronomical observations confirm that KIC 9832227 has undergone an "red nova" or similar explosive event, giving it a visual magnitude of 6 or less, before January 1, 2024 (giving an extra year or so to the Molner's stated prediction)
*(Edited 3/5/18) to clarify resolution criteria and nature of event.*
|
2018-03-05T08:00:00Z
|
2020-01-01T08:00:00Z
|
2024-01-01T21:35:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-612
|
Will SpaceX test-launch the BFR before 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: SpaceX's ultimate purpose always was to allow for the human colonization of Mars. While the company has existed since 2002, it was only in September of 2017 that Elon Musk <a href="http://www.spacex.com/mars">announced the creation of a launch vehicle capable of bringing humans to the red planet</a>, which he codenamed the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)">BFR</a>".
SpaceX currently plans to launch the BFR with Mars-bound cargo flights as early as 2022 (and plans to send humans to Mars in 2024), suggesting that the first test flight should take place prior to 2022.
Yet, Elon Musk does not always stick to schedules, which can be clearly seen in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#/media/File:SpaceX_Falcon_Heavy_schedule_delays.png">numerous delays of the Falcon Heavy</a>, even though it seems quite likely now that the Falcon Heavy will test-launch in the near future.
Therefore, it is asked: ***Will SpaceX launch a vehicle designed to bring at least 100 tones of payload into low earth orbit when used in a reusable manner before January 1st 2025 at 00:00 UTC?***
We shall define a "reusable manner" as at least 80% of the spacecraft's non-fuel non-payload mass being reusable.
For a positive resolution the rocket must clear the towers by at least 1 km. (Note that the launch, not the tower clearing must occur before January 1st 2025 at 00:00 UTC. It should be extremely unlikely that this technicality will matter.)
Resolution is by credible media report.
Closing time for the question has been symbolically set to the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landings.
|
2017-12-29T08:00:00Z
|
2019-07-21T01:56:00Z
|
2023-04-20T04:01:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-573
|
The End of NAFTA?
|
Resolution Criteria: The North American Free Trade Agreement [(NAFTA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) between Canada, Mexico, and the United States has been in force since January 1, 1994. Under the terms of the treaty, many previously-existing tariffs and other obstacles to the free movement of goods and services between the three member nations were curtailed or eliminated. Although the consensus amongst economists is that the treaty [has proved beneficial]( https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact) to the average North American citizen, evidence suggests it has nevertheless had a [strong negative effect](https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/nafta-at-20.pdf) on the livelihood of a small minority of workers, especially those in the American manufacturing sector, and is tied in with the [rise of a populist backlash in the US](http://www.nber.org/papers/w23559).
During his election campaign last year, [US President Trump made numerous promises to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/17/trump-nafta-goals-draw-from-tpp-campaign-240652) as part of a broadly successful attempt to appeal to blue-collar voters. Following up on these promises, the Trump administration [recently entered into renegotiation talks with the other two NAFTA member states.](http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/politics/trump-nafta-canada-mexico/index.html, ) However, Trump's proposed terms have been met with consistent opprobrium from both of his negotiating partners. This has led some to suggest that Trump is putting forward untenable demands at the negotiating table in a deliberate attempt to sabotage the talks and thus provide a convenient excuse to scrap NAFTA altogether. Pressure to renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA has also been growing from the left end of the political spectrum; former presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders was [vocal in his dislike](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm) of the current terms of the treaty during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary campaign.
We hence ask:
*** will the NAFTA treaty be dissolved before the beginning of 2025? ***
This question also resolves as positive if any of the three NAFTA member nations formally announce withdrawal from the treaty before January 1, 2025, as per a reputable source. Renegotiation of the terms of the NAFTA treaty does not count as a positive resolution.
|
2017-10-25T22:00:00Z
|
2018-10-30T20:00:00Z
|
2020-07-01T04:01:00Z
|
yes
|
METACULUS
|
meta-477
|
Efficacy confirmation of a new Alzheimer's treatment protocol?
|
Resolution Criteria: In September 2014 [a paper](http://www.aging-us.com/article/100690/text#fulltext) published in the journal *Aging* made a remarkable claim: A treatment for Alzheimer's disease reversed cognitive decline, allowing some people with early stages of the disease to return to work. The study stressed that more extensive investigation into the treatment, called "Metabolic Enhancement for Neurodegeneration" or MEND was needed.
In June 2016, [a further study](http://www.aging-us.com/article/100981) was published, also in *Aging*, that followed up on the original cohort of 10 patients and included objective measures of cognitive and metabolic function that demonstrated clear improvement using the MEND protocol.
Instead of directly treating the molecular underpinnings of Alzheimer's disease, MEND [treats the metabolic and inflammatory symptoms](https://qz.com/977133/a-ucla-study-shows-there-could-be-a-cure-for-alzheimers-disease/) of the disease. The treatment [regimen includes](http://www.aging-us.com/article/100690/text#fulltext) a low glycemic diet, stress reduction, and aids to better sleep, as well as vitamins and other products like fish oil and coconut oil. The regimen's goal was to improve metabolic function and reduce inflammation.
All ten patients displayed some cognitive improvement, with some noted as "Marked" or "significant" improvement. If proven out, MEND could represent a significant advance in the ongoing fight against Alzheimer's and dementia, potentially reducing the costs associated with caring for such conditions in an aging population.
So far, however, the MEND protocol has only been carried out in a single cohort and administered by a single research group.
***Will MEND be independently replicated by 2025?***
*This question will resolve as positive if a research group independent of UCLA's [Buck Institute for Research on Aging](https://www.buckinstitute.org) publishes in a reputable journal results of a MEND implementation in a completely separate cohort of patients that shows similar magnitudes of cognitive improvement on or before January 1, 2025.*
|
2017-06-12T21:21:40Z
|
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-02-18T07:59:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-445
|
By 2025, Will The Boring Company dig more tunnels (by length) than Trump's Mexican Border Wall?
|
Resolution Criteria: In late 2016, in an impressive sublimation of traffic-caused road-rage, Elon Musk announced via Twitter that
> Am going to build a tunnel boring machine and just start digging...
>It shall be called "The Boring Company"...
> I am really going to do this.
Per early-2017 reports, Musk has now [acquired a tunnel-boring machine, started digging a tunnel near his LA SpaceX office, and is investigating improvements in mining technology.](https://www.wired.com/2017/01/inside-tunnel-elon-musk-already-digging-los-angeles/) The vision is to eventually have many kilometers of tunnels under cities, as well as provide much better tunneling for hyperloop transportation systems.
This is arguably more progress, albeit with less of a potential pot of money, than another massive infrastructure project (probably) announced via Twitter: Trump's border wall. As of early 2017, there are [very preliminary plans](http://www.salon.com/2017/02/22/donald-trump-is-struggling-to-keep-his-border-wall-promise/), but no proposal submitted to congress.
In a [separate question](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/431/how-much-wall-will-in-the-end-be-built/) we ask how much wall will be built. Here, we'll put these projects head-to-head:
*** By 2025, Will The Boring Company dig more tunnels (by length) than Trump's Mexican Border Wall?***
Tunnel length will be counted as dug-out (but not necessarily finished) tunnels built by the Boring company or any other entity substantially under the control of Elon Musk. Wall length will be counted as per [the associated question](https://www.metaculus.com/questions/431/how-much-wall-will-in-the-end-be-built/) – note in particular that *fence* does not count.
|
2017-02-25T16:51:45Z
|
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-03T04:19:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-351
|
Assassination by autonomous weapon by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: One of the many areas in which automation is steadily advancing is in weapons systems. Advances in machine learning systems that can parse photos and video, recognize faces, maneuver in complex 3-dimensional spaces, etc., can in principle allow new weapons systems that operate largely or wholly without human guidance.
As described [here](http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/military-robots/do-we-want-robot-warriors-to-decide-who-lives-or-dies), such weapons raise a number of both strategic and ethical questions involving the threshold of conflict, arms races, and who (or what) chooses to take human lives. Several campaigns have arisen calling for an international ban on lethal autonomous weapons.
One major concern raised by such campaigns, articulated for example in this [open letter](http://futureoflife.org/open-letter-autonomous-weapons/), is that an arms race in autonomous weapons could lead to cheap, widely available, highly effective weapons that could be used for political purposes including suppression of dissent or assassinations. For example, a swarm of tiny drones with facial recognition systems could seek out particular individuals (or groups) and kill them with toxins or small close-range explosives.
*** Will a credible media report indicate that an autonomous weapon system has been used to kill a political figure by start of 2025? ***
Positive resolution requires that:
- the figure killed is in a leadership role of a political group – either a government or other organization built around political ends, and
- the target is identified by the autonomous system itself, according to some criteria, rather than by other means of surveillance (which may be used to localize the target but not select the target out of, for example, nearby people), and
- no other "unintended" people are significantly harmed in the attack.
|
2016-10-15T21:22:57Z
|
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T10:27:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-255
|
Pandemic series: a devastating bioterror attack by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: Bioterrorism is a significant and growing threat: in principle, infection of a single person with the right pathogen could create a devastating wave of sickness and death.
Thus far, the world has been largely spared this horror.
The most prominent attempts have probably been the Aum Shirinkyo cult, which made [multiple attempts](http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/atxchapter3.pdf) at biological attacks, including unsuccessful anthrax attacks.
The failure of Aum Shirinkyo suggests that creating a large-scale attack is quite difficult even with significant resources and the participation of trained scientists. On the other hand, widespread availability of information, better equipment, and new techniques developed over the past 20 years may make it easier.
Here we focus on the possibility of a very large-scale attack, such as could be caused by release of a highly transmissible pathogen such as influenza, smallpox, etc.
** By 2025 will a bioterror attack occur in which more than 500K total worldwide cases or 100K worldwide fatalities are reported? **
Here we consider only attacks in which a pathogen infects humans (rather than including toxins even if they are biologically generated such as for botulism), and we consider numbers from the WHO, CDC, or other government source.
|
2016-06-15T00:00:00Z
|
2017-12-15T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T12:09:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-254
|
Pandemic series: a significant bioterror attack by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: Bioterrorism is a significant and growing threat: in principle, infection of a single person with the right pathogen could create a devastating wave of sickness and death.
Thus far, the world has been largely spared this horror.
The largest attack on US soil to date is apparently a [1984 Oregon attack on salad bars(!)](http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2014/01/09/the_largest_bioterror_attack_in_us_history_began_at_taco_time_in_the_dalles.html) carried out by a religious group.
Internationally, the Aum Shirinkyo cult made [multiple attempts](http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/atxchapter3.pdf) at biological attacks, including unsuccessful anthrax attacks. (It was more tragically successful using Sarin gas, which killed 12 in the 1994 subway attacks.)
These efforts at bioterrorism were largely failures; however, that does not mean future attacks will not succeed. So here we ask:
** By 2025 will a bioterror attack occur in which more than 1000 total worldwide cases or 100 worldwide fatalities are reported? **
Here we consider only attacks in which a pathogen infects humans (rather than including toxins even if they are biologically generated such as for botulism), and we consider numbers from the WHO, CDC, or other government source.
|
2016-06-15T00:00:00Z
|
2017-06-15T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T12:01:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
meta-240
|
Pandemic series: a significant flu pandemic by 2025?
|
Resolution Criteria: Probably the highest risk for a natural pandemic is posed by new versions of influenza. Since 1500 there have been 13 or more influenza pandemics according to [this list](http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/), with five in the past 120 years, in 1889, 1918, 1957, 1968 and 1977 (since then there is also a [listing for a 2009 pandemic](http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_13/en/) at the WHO.)
The definition of a "pandemic" varies among sources; here we will define a "significant pandemic" to be a single-year epidemic that causes more than about five times the annual [estimated 250K-500K deaths due to seasonal influenza](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/). Of the 6 most recent pandemic, probably two (1918 and 1957) fulfill this criterion. We then ask:
**Will there be more than 2.5M deaths worldwide in a single 1-year period due to an influenza strain of natural origin by 2025?**
Resolution is positive if numbers reported by the CDC, WHO, or other official organizations put an estimated total number of fatalities above 2.5M in a single 1-year period that ends prior to Jan 1, 2025. (If only ranges are available, question will resolve as positive if the bottom end of the range exceeds 2.5M.)
|
2016-06-15T00:00:00Z
|
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
|
2025-01-01T11:49:00Z
|
no
|
METACULUS
|
mani-9cn2tyq8nc
|
Will one or both Tate brothers visit Mar-a-Lago within 1 week [March 6]? - credible reporting
|
It has been reported that the Tate brothers are en route to Florida from Romania after their travel restrictions were lifted.
About a week ago, reports said that someone within the Trump administration was pushing Romania for their release.
This market resolved Yes if one or both Tate brothers are confirmed - by credible reporting only - to be at the Mar-a-Lago compound within one week. The evidence must make it clear without a doubt that they are, in fact, at Mar-a-Lago, per credible sources to resolve Yes. Tweets from the Tates will not count, nor will "sources say" anonymous claims. Someone(s) official within the Trump camp or the Mar-a-Lago complex must unambiguously state that the Tate or Tates are there.
related markets:
@/shankypanky/will-andrew-tate-meet-in-person-wit
@/shankypanky/will-andrew-tate-meet-in-person-wit-tQ0Ons2LhZ
|
2025-02-27T10:43:18
|
2025-03-06T23:59:00
|
2025-03-07T06:58:48
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-I0tOsglSA2
|
Will Andrew Tate meet in person with Trump within 1 week [March 6]? - photo/video
|
It has been reported that the Tate brothers are en route to Florida from Romania after their travel restrictions were lifted.
About a week ago, reports said that someone within the Trump administration was pushing Romania for their release.
This market resolved Yes if Andrew Tate is confirmed - by credible photos or video only - to meet with Trump in person. The visual evidence must make it clear without a doubt that he is, in fact, with Trump for an in-person meeting within one week of market creation. Reports of a phone call or video chat or co-joining an X Space will not resolve Yes.
related markets:
@/shankypanky/will-one-or-both-tate-brothers-visi
@/shankypanky/will-andrew-tate-meet-in-person-wit-tQ0Ons2LhZ
|
2025-02-27T09:19:13
|
2025-03-06T23:59:00
|
2025-03-07T06:59:06
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-CPAdS2hLN5
|
Will one or both Tate brothers visit Mar-a-Lago within 1 week [March 6]? - photo/video
|
It has been reported that the Tate brothers are en route to Florida from Romania after their travel restrictions were lifted.
About a week ago, reports said that someone within the Trump administration was pushing Romania for their release.
This market resolved Yes if one or both Tate brothers are confirmed - by credible photos or video only - to be at the Mar-a-Lago compound within one week. The visual evidence must make it clear without a doubt that they are, in fact, at Mar-a-Lago; a tight headshot with a caption and otherwise nondescript setting will not resolve Yes.
related markets:
@/shankypanky/will-andrew-tate-meet-in-person-wit
@/shankypanky/will-andrew-tate-meet-in-person-wit-tQ0Ons2LhZ
|
2025-02-27T09:15:58
|
2025-03-06T23:59:00
|
2025-03-07T06:59:15
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-NlsRy20QsP
|
Will GPT-4.5 be released on Thursday?
|
[image]
|
2025-02-26T20:07:02
|
2025-02-27T17:34:19
|
2025-02-27T17:34:19
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-qgd8qOU5Qt
|
Will Zelensky visit the White House before March 5 to discuss and sign the minerals deal?
|
Zelensky and Trump have been negotiating a minerals deal giving the U.S. access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. While a visit is expected political resistance in Ukraine and uncertainty over U.S. commitments could delay it!
Will Zelensky make the trip and finalize the deal before March 5 or will obstacles push it back?
[image]Update 2025-02-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification:
Resolution will be determined as of March 5.
If by March 5 the minerals deal has been signed, the market will resolve as Yes.
|
2025-02-25T21:31:55
|
2025-03-05T10:29:00
|
2025-03-06T03:02:40
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-SC6n26qN80
|
Will Mark Carney become Prime Minister of Canada?
|
Update 2025-02-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Criteria Update:
Timeframe: Mark Carney must become Prime Minister of Canada prior to December 31, 2025 for the outcome to count.
Implication: Outcomes occurring after this date will not satisfy the criteria.
|
2025-02-23T19:15:24
|
2025-03-09T16:01:57
|
2025-03-09T16:01:57
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-SsZAC02yIy
|
US tariffs on Canada delayed again on or before March 4, 2025
|
This market tracks whether the US will announce another delay in implementing 25% tariffs on most Canadian imports before March 4, 2025.
Resolution Criteria:
Resolves YES if the US government officially announces a delay or suspension of planned tariffs on Canada on or before March 4, 2025
Resolves NO if no delay is announced and tariffs take effect
Notes:
Cancellation counts as a delay
If tariffs are reduced to a small subset of affected goods, or slashed well below 25%, then this counts as cancellation. I will use my judgement to determine if half or more of the originally planned tariffs apply, based on a combination of rates and categories of items. This will be subjective, so I won't bet on this market.
Update 2025-03-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on Tariff Reduction Threshold:
Threshold Definition: Tariffs reduced on the originally planned goods (excluding energy) to below 12.5% (i.e. less than half of the planned 25%) will be treated as a cancellation and considered as 'well below' the originally planned rate.
Update 2025-03-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update: Revised Timing & Suspension Criteria
Timing Correction: The focus is now on whether the tariffs take effect. The previous reference to the March 4 deadline for announcing a delay is no longer used.
Effective Tariffs Resolution: If the tariffs take effect—even if they are later paused or cancelled—the outcome will be resolved as NO.
Suspension Requirement for YES: Only a suspension or delay declared before the tariffs take effect will result in a YES resolution.
|
2025-02-22T12:25:06
|
2025-03-04T04:33:53
|
2025-03-04T04:33:58
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-Q95nSslnUN
|
Will Pope Francis live past the end of February?
|
{'type': 'doc', 'content': [{'type': 'paragraph'}]}
|
2025-02-22T12:09:44
|
2025-03-01T20:59:00
|
2025-03-01T21:44:51
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-pOsdERczps
|
Will Grok remain the #1 model on the Chatbot Arena through March 31? [Polymarket]
|
See the polymarket market:
This market will resolve to "Yes" if any model owned by xAI has the highest arena score on the Chatbot Arena LLM Leaderboard (https://lmarena.ai/) continuously from February 18, to March 31, 2025, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No."
Results from the "Arena Score" section on the Leaderboard tab of https://lmarena.ai/ with the style control unchecked will be used to resolve this market.
If a listed modeI ties xAI for the #1 Arena score, it will not qualify to resolve this market to "No."
The resolution source for this market is the Chatbot Arena LLM Leaderboard found at https://lmarena.ai/. If this resolution source becomes unavailable, the market will remain open until it is accessible again. If it becomes permanently unavailable, resolution will be based on another credible source.
|
2025-02-18T10:57:40
|
2025-03-09T06:11:38
|
2025-03-09T06:11:38
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-hU90uUlIcy
|
Bitcoin above $97K on February 28?
|
Resolution Criteria:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the price of Bitcoin reaches or exceeds $97,000 at any point between 12:00 AM and 11:59 PM PT on Feb 28, 2025.
The market will resolve to “No” if Bitcoin does not reach or exceed this price level during the specified time frame.
Resolution Source:
The primary resolution source for this market will be the Coinbase BTC/USD price. In the event of any discrepancies or outages, data from Kraken and Bitstamp may be used as secondary sources to verify the price.
Additional Notes:
• Only the price recorded within the exact time window (12:00 AM - 11:59 PM PT) on Feb 28, 2025 will count towards resolution.
• If Bitcoin exceeds $97,000 outside of this time frame, it will not influence the market outcome.
• This market will resolve immediately if the criteria are met, without waiting until the end of the day.
|
2025-02-17T22:04:18
|
2025-02-28T23:59:00
|
2025-03-01T16:48:54
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-hsncEU09P0
|
Will the United States win the 2025 4 Nations Face-Off championship? 🏒
|
[image]
|
2025-02-17T11:55:00
|
2025-02-20T20:35:34
|
2025-02-20T20:35:34
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-9t5cq2tud8
|
will xAI release a reasoning model today?
|
Will xAI release a reasoning model today? (today = Monday PT)
[image]For clarity: release = must be available to members of the public (e.g. x.com premium users or something)
|
2025-02-17T06:07:08
|
2025-02-17T23:59:00
|
2025-02-19T01:58:35
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-SN20tnyclN
|
Will Amazon (AMZN) close higher on February 21st than it did on February 14th
|
Background
Amazon's stock closed at $228.68 on February 14th, 2025.
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve to YES if Amazon's (AMZN) stock closing price on February 21st, 2025 is higher than $228.68 (its February 14th closing price). It will resolve to NO if the closing price is equal to or lower than $228.68.
If trading is halted or suspended on February 21st, the market will resolve based on the next available closing price. If the stock undergoes a split between February 14th and 21st, the February 14th price will be adjusted accordingly for comparison.
Considerations
The week between February 14th and 21st includes Presidents' Day (February 17th), meaning there will be one fewer trading day than usual
|
2025-02-17T05:26:58
|
2025-02-21T16:30:53
|
2025-02-21T16:30:53
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-dOq89tIScc
|
Was Milei hacked?
|
Background On February 14, Argentine President Javier Milei posted about a LIBRA token on his X (formerly Twitter) account. The announcement was also shared on his Instagram account. The token's value reportedly increased significantly following the announcement.
Resolution Criteria This market will resolve YES if there is official confirmation from Milei's team, X/Twitter, or credible cybersecurity investigators that his account was compromised/hacked at the time of the LIBRA token post. The market will resolve NO if:
Milei or his team confirms the post was intentional
No evidence of a hack emerges within 30 days of the post
The post is deleted without any confirmation of a hack
Considerations
Social media accounts of high-profile political figures have been hacked before to promote cryptocurrency projects
The simultaneous posting on multiple platforms (X and Instagram) could suggest coordinated action rather than a hack
Traders should note that the absence of a hack confirmation is not the same as confirmation that there was no hack
|
2025-02-14T17:56:51
|
2025-02-17T22:06:35
|
2025-02-17T22:06:35
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-P5zIZ5ucZz
|
Will the Israel - Hamas ceasefire end on Saturday?
|
Background
The current Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement involves the exchange of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners. Hamas has announced a delay in releasing hostages, citing alleged Israeli violations of the agreement. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has issued an ultimatum stating that if Hamas does not release the scheduled hostages by Saturday noon (local time), the ceasefire will end and military operations will resume.
Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve YES if:
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) officially announces the resumption of military operations in Gaza on Saturday
Either party formally declares an end to the ceasefire on Saturday
Military operations resume between the parties on Saturday, even without formal declaration
This market will resolve NO if:
The ceasefire continues past Saturday
The ceasefire ends on a different day
The ceasefire is extended through negotiations
For resolution purposes, "Saturday" refers to Saturday local time in Israel/Gaza (UTC+2).
Considerations
The situation is highly dynamic and depends on multiple factors including the successful exchange of hostages and prisoners
Previous ceasefire agreements during this conflict have been extended through last-minute negotiations
Both sides have accused each other of violations, which could impact the ceasefire's status regardless of the hostage exchange
|
2025-02-12T07:48:21
|
2025-02-15T02:00:00
|
2025-02-18T12:32:06
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-ctz2EdtCPQ
|
Bitcoin above $97K on February 21?
|
Resolution Criteria:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the price of Bitcoin reaches or exceeds $97,000 at any point between 12:00 AM and 11:59 PM PT on Feb 21, 2025.
The market will resolve to “No” if Bitcoin does not reach or exceed this price level during the specified time frame.
Resolution Source:
The primary resolution source for this market will be the Coinbase BTC/USD price. In the event of any discrepancies or outages, data from Kraken and Bitstamp may be used as secondary sources to verify the price.
Additional Notes:
• Only the price recorded within the exact time window (12:00 AM - 11:59 PM PT) on Feb 21, 2025 will count towards resolution.
• If Bitcoin exceeds $97,000 outside of this time frame, it will not influence the market outcome.
• This market will resolve immediately if the criteria are met, without waiting until the end of the day.
|
2025-02-11T14:23:06
|
2025-02-21T01:31:02
|
2025-02-21T01:31:02
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-pCg2p0qNI5
|
will xAI release a reasoning model this month?
|
Background
Rumour:
[image]
|
2025-02-11T07:32:04
|
2025-02-18T22:56:38
|
2025-02-18T22:56:38
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-Sn0ngz2Etc
|
will Grok 3 be released this week?
|
Resolves YES if Grok 3 is released this week.
Background:
Rumour:
[image]Update 2025-02-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Calendar Week Definition:
The resolution is based on a calendar week rather than a 7-day period from market creation.
Any release anywhere on Earth during that calendar week will resolve the market as YES.
|
2025-02-11T07:30:55
|
2025-02-17T02:59:00
|
2025-02-17T03:15:51
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-zPtp60hSZC
|
Will Donald Trump say he loves Elon Musk, in 2025?
|
[tweet]Resolves YES if, after market creation but in 2025, Donald Trump says he loves Elon Musk. He must use the word "love" and refer to Elon. It does not count if he refers to an attribute elon musk has, like "I love Elon Musk's eyes". He doesn't need to mention Elon by name; saying "I love him", referring to Elon, counts. Any medium counts; speech, text, song, etc.
Update 2025-02-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Group Statements Clarification:
If Trump uses a group pronoun (e.g., 'we') in a statement like "We love Elon Musk...", it counts as long as it is clear that Trump includes himself in that sentiment.
Group statements are valid provided they imply that Trump himself is expressing love for Elon Musk.
|
2025-02-07T15:04:58
|
2025-03-02T13:18:32
|
2025-03-02T13:18:32
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-UEyndCyOO8
|
Will Taylor Swift & Donald Trump shake hands at Super Bowl LIX?
|
Resolution criteria borrowed from Polymarket [1].
This market will resolve to "Yes" if at Super Bowl LIX, Donald Trump and Taylor Swift shake hands at any point on while on venue grounds (must be confirmed by picture or video). Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
[1]. Resolution criteria, not resolution result, although I would be surprised if there was any reason to diverge from their resolution.
|
2025-02-07T14:15:33
|
2025-02-09T14:59:00
|
2025-02-09T20:45:26
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-OsLNNZ8ypQ
|
Trump will sign an executive order that mentions "Bitcoin" in 2025
|
Update 2025-02-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Official sources:
The executive order must be published on whitehouse.gov or the Federal Register.
Keywords:
The text must include bitcoin, bitcoins, or BTC (in the meaning of Bitcoin).
This clarifies that only orders meeting these specific criteria will resolve the market as YES.
|
2025-02-07T13:22:22
|
2025-03-06T22:27:37
|
2025-03-06T22:27:37
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-ntgCy2C2c2
|
Will Kanye launch a coin in February?
|
Context: https://x.com/kanyewest/status/1887837266703417817
Criteria: Resolves to 'Yes' if Kanye West is confirmed by credible reports to have launched his own blockchain token before February 28, 2025, 11:59pm (PST).
|
2025-02-07T12:15:38
|
2025-02-28T23:59:00
|
2025-03-01T08:04:05
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-QncIcO8sng
|
Will Grok 3 Top the Chatbot Leaderboard?
|
https://lmarena.ai/?leaderboard
Resolves YES if Grok 3 has the highest Arena Score at any point within one week of it appearing on the leaderboard.
|
2025-02-07T06:05:05
|
2025-02-17T23:28:57
|
2025-02-17T23:28:57
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-UOOtzz8s6U
|
Will the iPhone SE debut next week?
|
By "debut" I mean "be officially presented by Apple
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/02/06/iphone-se-4-launch-next-week/
|
2025-02-07T01:30:34
|
2025-02-16T11:24:38
|
2025-02-16T11:24:38
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-Z8R0SPSdIy
|
Will David Pakman have more YouTube video views in February compared to January?
|
This market resolves yes if the David Pakman Show YouTube channel has more views in February than in January according to this SocialBlade page.
[image]Update 2025-02-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Data Point Clarification:
The market will be resolved based on the monthly gained video views graph datapoint from SocialBlade.
The datapoint compares the total video views in February versus January.
Resolution will occur once this specific datapoint is generated.
|
2025-02-06T14:08:22
|
2025-02-28T23:59:00
|
2025-03-01T12:23:20
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-qt6dndUSQR
|
Will Trump impose additional tariffs on China before April 10?
|
This market closes on March 6th, but cannot resolve NO until April 11th.
The tariffs must actually go into effect for this market to resolve YES. The market still resolves YES even if the tariffs are removed immediately after taking effect.
|
2025-02-04T10:00:10
|
2025-03-04T08:27:05
|
2025-03-04T08:27:05
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-hlLZEPn2qS
|
Will Trump sign tariffs on the EU by March?
|
Trump has placed tariffs on Canada (and has postponed tariffs on Mexico before they went into effect). He's now saying that the EU will "definitely" see tariffs as well.
Resolves YES if Trump signs any executive order OR signs any congressional act that places tariffs on the European Union (or 2+ specific EU countries) by market close. For example, if Trump signed an executive order to put tariffs on France and Germany, but then postponed France's tariffs before they went into effect, this market still resolves YES.
Update 2025-02-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Signature Timing:
The market resolves YES if an executive order or congressional act is signed before March.
The actual start date of the tariffs is irrelevant, so an order stating tariffs will begin after March still meets the criteria if signed before March.
|
2025-02-03T11:43:27
|
2025-02-28T20:59:00
|
2025-02-28T22:22:45
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-ugUuysuqy5
|
Will there be another notable US plane crash in February?
|
The last market had less-than-great resolution criteria. Hopefully this one will be a little better!
For the purposes of this market:
"Notable" means any of the following:
At least 3 of CNN, the New York Times, NBC News, Reuters, AP News, Fox News, USA Today, BBC, or NPR call the accident a "crash,"
The accident leaves 10 or more dead or 15 or more injured,
Someone with a Wikipedia page is killed.
"US" means that the plane was in US airspace at the time of the crash, or international airspace having taken off from the US.
"Plane" includes (but is not limited to) jumbo jets, helicopters, private aircraft, cargo planes, commercial aircraft, medevac flights, etc.
"Crash" typically means a plane hits ground violently (or the ocean, or trees, or buildings, etc.). It does not include other kinds of accident (such as, for example, a plane colliding with a vehicle, an on-ground fire, a cargo hold fire with a successful emergency landing on a runway, or in-air turbulence that results in deaths), but would include particularly violent on-ground accidents that involve a collision at speed (such as overshooting the runway and hitting a building).
|
2025-02-02T13:48:05
|
2025-02-07T17:07:51
|
2025-02-07T17:07:51
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-CuNIsAP69U
|
S&P 500 drops more than 6% on February 3rd, 2025 compared to January 31st close
|
Market will resolve YES if the S&P 500 index closes more than 6% lower on February 3rd, 2025 compared to its closing price on January 31st, 2025. Resolution based on official closing prices from https://www.investing.com/indices/us-spx-500-historical-data
|
2025-02-02T08:49:20
|
2025-02-03T16:00:00
|
2025-02-05T06:29:03
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-lI8082U9SN
|
Will Alex Pereira defeat Magomed Ankalaev at UFC 313?
|
Draw or No Contest will resolve as N/A
Chama
🤣😭
|
2025-02-02T07:18:15
|
2025-03-08T22:02:54
|
2025-03-08T22:02:54
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-82ZAnEgEhh
|
Will the S&P 500 stock index close higher on Feb 3 than it closed on Jan 31?
|
Will it close higher than $6,040.53
|
2025-02-02T01:18:26
|
2025-02-03T13:50:25
|
2025-02-03T13:50:25
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-hNZ9Sc2ANP
|
Will Trump issue an executive order in February to shut down the Department of Education?
|
Resolves YES even if the order is blocked by a court, or rescinded 15 minutes after being issued
Update 2025-02-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Full shutdown/defunding required: The executive order must result in the complete shutdown of the Department of Education by fully defunding it.
Partial defunding does not count: If any functions of the Department remain intact or are transferred to another agency, the market will resolve as NO.
|
2025-01-31T12:18:29
|
2025-02-07T23:59:00
|
2025-03-04T15:12:09
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-tUnR8PZZEz
|
Will OpenAI run a Super Bowl ad?
|
I will borrow resolution criteria from Kalshi:
This market is strictly for ads ran via the national broadcast on Fox Sports. Ads ran on local broadcasts or Fox Deportes will not count for this market. The advertisement must occur after kick-off and before the game has ended. An ad is aired if it is aired as part of a promotional advertisement during a commercial break.
Thus I expect resolution will likely match theirs, but it doesn't need to if for some reason they don't follow the spirit of these rules.
|
2025-01-31T08:57:20
|
2025-02-09T15:20:00
|
2025-02-09T20:40:54
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-OPl99N5Aun
|
Super Bowl LIX: Will the Philadelphia Eagles win?
|
{'type': 'doc', 'content': [{'type': 'paragraph'}]}
|
2025-01-30T18:56:48
|
2025-02-09T19:21:18
|
2025-02-09T19:47:09
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-8NUA6LsysN
|
Bitcoin above $105K on Valentine's Day?
|
Resolution Criteria:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the price of Bitcoin reaches or exceeds $105,000 at any point between 12:00 AM and 11:59 PM PT on Feb 14, 2025.
The market will resolve to “No” if Bitcoin does not reach or exceed this price level during the specified time frame.
Resolution Source:
The primary resolution source for this market will be the Coinbase BTC/USD price. In the event of any discrepancies or outages, data from Kraken and Bitstamp may be used as secondary sources to verify the price.
Additional Notes:
• Only the price recorded within the exact time window (12:00 AM - 11:59 PM PT) on Feb 14, 2025 will count towards resolution.
• If Bitcoin exceeds $105,000 outside of this time frame, it will not influence the market outcome.
• This market will resolve immediately if the criteria are met, without waiting until the end of the day.
|
2025-01-29T23:40:47
|
2025-02-14T23:59:00
|
2025-02-15T09:09:42
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-UyuZpIzR9g
|
At least 5% of federal workers accept Trump administration buyout offer by February 6th 2025
|
The Trump administration has offered federal workers a 'deferred resignation' buyout program, estimating 5-10% acceptance rate [edit: I previously said 5%, in error]. Resolution based on official government statements or credible news reports (NBC News, etc.) of final acceptance rate by program deadline.
Resolution criteria: Market resolves YES if at least 5% of eligible federal workers accept the buyout offer by Feb 6th 2025. NO if outside this range. If the buyout program is extended, this market will not extend, and will be resolved only based on employees resigning in the period to February 6th.
References:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-administration-offer-federal-workers-buyouts-resign-rcna189661
|
2025-01-29T21:07:12
|
2025-02-06T16:00:00
|
2025-02-13T09:04:36
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-EUCtpdlgCp
|
Will the midair collision at Reagan Airport be shown to be terrorism?
|
From the FAA:
A PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet collided in midair with a Sikorsky H-60 helicopter while on approach to Runway 33 at Reagan Washington National Airport around 9 p.m. local time.
PSA was operating as Flight 5342 for American Airlines. It departed from Wichita, Kansas.
Resolves on reports from at least one of:
• ABC
• CBS
• NBC
• PBS
• NPR
• CNN
• Fox
• MSNBC
• Associated Press
• New York Times
• Washington Examiner
• Wall Street Journal
• USA Today
|
2025-01-29T20:32:31
|
2025-03-05T09:02:40
|
2025-03-05T09:02:40
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-59QPz2PRLI
|
Will Taylor Swift be shown at least 10 times during the Super Bowl broadcast?
|
Resolution source: I will almost certainly follow the number determined by Polymarket (unless there is overwhelming reason to doubt their number, in which case I will look for a consensus of credible reporting).
Thus, this only counts between the start of the national anthem and the final whistle of the game. Each discrete "time" must be separated by a shot where Taylor Swift is not visible. Only live appearances count (e.g. commercials are excluded).
|
2025-01-29T07:39:53
|
2025-02-09T15:35:00
|
2025-02-10T08:22:48
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-C8zpgUnZQR
|
Will Trump again express intent to run for a third term while he is president, before the end of Febuary 2025?
|
Any expression of intent counts, even if it is "obviously a joke", e.g. a Tweet saying "Who knows? Maybe I will run in 2028." counts.
Note: on Jan 29 he joked about it which resulted in the prior market resolving YES.
Must be from today or later.
|
2025-01-29T00:51:25
|
2025-02-28T23:59:00
|
2025-03-03T11:34:43
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-sA685lh9ZA
|
Bitcoin above $102K on Feb 10?
|
Resolution Criteria:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if the price of Bitcoin reaches or exceeds $102,000 at any point between 12:00 AM and 11:59 PM PT on February 10, 2025.
The market will resolve to “No” if Bitcoin does not reach or exceed this price level during the specified time frame.
Resolution Source:
The primary resolution source for this market will be the Coinbase BTC/USD price. In the event of any discrepancies or outages, data from Kraken and Bitstamp may be used as secondary sources to verify the price.
Additional Notes:
• Only the price recorded within the exact time window (12:00 AM - 11:59 PM PT) on February 10, 2025 will count towards resolution.
• If Bitcoin exceeds $102,000 outside of this time frame, it will not influence the market outcome.
• This market will resolve immediately if the criteria are met, without waiting until the end of the day.
|
2025-01-29T00:04:09
|
2025-02-10T23:59:00
|
2025-02-11T13:18:12
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-lsplIEPgdn
|
Will o3 (OpenAI model) be released before March 2025?
|
{'type': 'doc', 'content': [{'type': 'paragraph'}]}
|
2025-01-28T19:08:20
|
2025-03-01T20:59:00
|
2025-03-02T17:37:16
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-tPN8gSdLR0
|
Will Trump announce mass layoffs on Feb 7?
|
Axios reports that all Federal employees have received an email similar to Elon's "Fork in the Road" ultimatum to Twitter employees in 2022.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/28/trump-federal-workers-quit-severance
Reporting suggests that, if a federal employee replies to the email before February 6 and expresses in writing an intent to resign, then that employee "will retain all pay and benefits regardless of [their] daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025."
Will Trump announce on February 7 that he is laying off employees, and will it be discovered that a majority of employees who expressed an intent to resign have been laid off effective immediately?
This question only resolves Yes if both of the following happen:
On Feb 7 a credible news source reports breaking news of mass layoffs within the federal government, or on Feb 7 the White House publishes official public communication that an average reader would interpret as announcing mass layoffs.
Before Feb 14 a credible news source reports that >50% of the employees who expressed an intent to resign were laid off effective immediately as part of the mass layoffs
Resolves No otherwise
|
2025-01-28T17:03:48
|
2025-02-07T14:34:46
|
2025-02-07T14:34:46
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-ISApEyZ6Et
|
Will Anthropic release a reasoning model before March 2025?
|
Resolves yes if Anthropic releases a model for public use before March
|
2025-01-28T14:38:25
|
2025-02-24T12:59:19
|
2025-02-24T12:59:19
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-PQcOnqEty5
|
Will NVDA recover this month?
|
Resolves YES if NVDA reaches 134 before Jan 31, 2025, 4 PM ET
Background:
NVDA crashed in response to China's DeepSeek success
[image]
|
2025-01-27T10:44:20
|
2025-01-31T16:00:00
|
2025-01-31T16:08:57
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-SZslRAZOIu
|
NVIDIA (NVDA) stock price above $140 by February 10, 2025
|
This market tracks whether NVIDIA's stock will recover to its previous high of $140 within the next 14 days.
Resolution will be based on the closing price on February 10, 2025 as reported by Investing.com.
References:
https://www.investopedia.com/nvidia-stock-extends-recovery-rally-nears-record-high-8697887
https://www.investing.com/equities/nvidia-corp-historical-data
|
2025-01-27T08:01:29
|
2025-02-09T16:00:00
|
2025-02-20T10:13:54
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-qLP0EQLl80
|
Trump imposes new tariffs on Canada by EOD February 1st, 2025
|
This market will resolve based on whether President Donald Trump implements new tariffs on Canada by the end of the day on February 1st, 2025. The market will resolve YES if official announcements or executive orders are issued by the U.S. government imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Canada.
Note that although Trump often mentions tariffs for Canada and Mexico in the same breath, this market resolves only based on Canadian tariffs. Additional tariffs on Mexico are neither sufficient nor necessary to resolve this market as YES.
References:
https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/trump-tariffs-trade-policy-executive-order-inauguration/737823/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-21/trump-plans-to-enact-25-tariffs-on-mexico-canada-by-feb-1
|
2025-01-27T06:40:19
|
2025-02-01T14:36:40
|
2025-02-01T14:36:40
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-UC9pu9cAhp
|
Super Bowl LIX: Will the Philadelphia Eagles win?
|
ℹ YES if Philadelphia Eagles win. NO if Kansas City Chiefs win. Final winner after OT if applicable.
|
2025-01-26T17:59:57
|
2025-02-09T19:21:18
|
2025-02-09T19:21:18
|
yes
|
MANIFOLD
|
mani-SOCnUR8pA8
|
PEPFAR funding unfrozen by February 15, 2025
|
On January 24, the State Department paused disbursements of foreign aid for a 90-day review period. So far, there are exemptions for emergency food aid but not for PEPFAR. This market resolves YES if PEPFAR funding is unfrozen as of February 15, 2025, and NO if funding is (still) frozen on that date.
https://apnews.com/article/state-department-trump-foreign-aid-bf047e17ef64cb42a1a1b7fdf05caffa
Update 2025-02-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification of Resolution Criteria
50% Funding Threshold: The market will resolve YES if at least 50% of total PEPFAR funding is unfrozen by February 15, 2025, as estimated from reliable sources.
Outcome: If less than 50% of the funding is unfrozen by that date, the market will resolve as NO.
|
2025-01-25T16:32:18
|
2025-02-15T16:00:00
|
2025-03-01T13:09:57
|
no
|
MANIFOLD
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.