Add your own answers!
Unless otherwise specified:
"Trump bans" refers to Trump or the US government, but actions, like "Trump says X" refers only to Trump. I expect the intent to be pretty clear. (If not, I reserve the right to modify the phrasing to make it clearer; ping me if you find an option unclear)
"Trump" refers to the person that was president of the US in 2017-2021.
If something is not known to have happened, unless otherwise specified, it would resolve NO. For example, the option "Trump gets COVID" resolves NO unless it is announced or sufficiently confirmed, despite the possibility that he gets covid without announcing it. The intent here is to resolve YES when the balance of evidence clearly indicates the option prediction happened.
"Trump's Second Term" is the time between Jan 20 2025 and Jan 20 2029, so long as the US continues to exist and Republicans remain in power in the White House. Trump dying doesn't end Trump's Second Term for the purposes of this market.
I reserve the right to cancel any option that doesn't seem relevant / unconnected to trump / etc. If a question is ambiguous, please ping the question creator for clarification. If they don't clarify within a few days, ping me and I'll decide how it's disambiguated.
Consensus of credible reporting will be used for this market's resolution. I am not following Trump's every move so I'd very much appreciate @s when options need to be resolved.
Update 2025-17-01 (PST): - Clarification on "Trump discloses aliens are real":
Refers to Trump stating that aliens have interacted with or visited Earth.
Does not include aliens located 5 trillion light years away outside the observable universe. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-17-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Trump discloses Aliens are real refers to scenarios where:
Aliens have interacted with humans
Alien technology has been found
Aliens have visited Earth
Does not include aliens located 5 trillion light years away outside the observable universe.
1,000
3.00@Krantz <0.1% probability, regardless of whether it's good, society won't completely overhaul itself within a couple years
@TheAllMemeingEye You guys don't want my money then?
I just want to wager on something actually important instead of stuff like whether he will say 'skibidi'.
Are we still not allowed to say important things?
@Krantz I feel like there are already plenty of markets on the krantz mechanism, imo this market should be reserved for stuff directly related to trump / his administration / his family that has >1% probability. If you insist on it, maybe a more reachable bar would be something like "Trump, any head of gov department, or any congressperson mentions the krantz mechanism"
@TheAllMemeingEye I see. What I really aim to wager on is whether the primary method of education in the United States will exist in the form that the krantz mechanism defines. The term 'krantz' being used isn't necessarily what I'm concerned with.
In other words, if Elon transformed X into a platform that explicitly does the same thing as krantz, but calls it something different and people are able to earn money by checking facts and that makes traditional pedagogical institutions obsolete, I would want this prediction to resolve 'yes'.
Maybe it should say "Trump allows some sort of way for humanity verified users to vote directly, openly and securely on a decentralized constitution and get paid for it."?
@Krantz do prediction markets themselves count as a Krantz mechanism? You basically get paid to determine the truth
@TheAllMemeingEye would anyone mentioning all the existing studies on paying students for grades or the any government grants for scientific research count for that hypothetical? I don't think “the krantz mechanism” can even be clearly defined and “pay people to check facts” is literally all of academia (in the ideal case).
@TimothyJohnson5c16 I would accept that if it were true.
However, this statement from the White House (that the FAA approved the drones) contradicts an FAA statement from December that they did not know what the drones were.
Therefore, one of those statements is false, and the government has lied. We still don't know what the drones are.
@SteveSokolowski Is the most recent statement not intuitively more likely to be closer to the truth? As in, it was secret so they lied before, but now they're partly coming clean? I don't see why they would tell a second, contradicting, even stronger lie
@TheAllMemeingEye Even if the current statement is "closer" to the truth, it still doesn't mean the cause is "known."
I would personally think that, for the cause to be known, it would have to not be contradicted by the government's other explanations, and it would have to be specific. "Research," even if it is true, doesn't provide any more knowledge than we knew before.
For this to resolve YES, I would suggest that we we need to know exactly what type of craft they are, a specific reason they are being flown, and who is flying them, such that a New Jersey resident is confident what action, if any, he should take.
The conspiracy theory earlier of "radiation detection aircraft flown by NEST to detect nuclear weapons" would suffice, if it were true. Or, "new weather sensing technology flown by Accuweather." Or, "non-human craft performing some sort of surveillance."
Think of what the people of New Jersey, who were (and still are) scared of these unexplained things flying around, expect the government to tell them so that they feel confident in what action, if any, they need to take. With conflicting agencies talking about "research," New Jersey residents have no idea what effects the drones are causing on them and what they should do.
relevant EO for 18-year-old adults: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/28/trump-executive-order-transgender-transition
(unclear implementation, unclear enforcement plan)
A clarification question on "Hakeem Jeffries out as House Majority / Minority Leader": If Democrats gain control of congress in the 2026 or 2028 elections, and Jeffries becomes Speaker, will this resolve Yes? I think technically it should, since some other Democrat would presumably become Majority Leader. However that seems potentially at odds with the spirit of the question, since he would have been promoted rather than unseated.
@jb456 I completely forgot that the speaker is a different person from the house majority leader when I made this question, to be honest. Oops. By the language of the market it should, but I definitely intended this to be more about him getting unseated or otherwise removed from his role as the top house democrat.
@Bayesian dark brandon disagrees
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_the_Soul_of_the_Nation_speech
@Symmetry what do you think he was actually referring to? I genuinely don't understand the metaphor he was trying to make, did he just mean the collective souls of the American population?
@TheAllMemeingEye I think he's talking about the set of implicit norms, rules, conventions and stories that permeate the which make America distinctly American and which are implicitly or explicitly shared between most Americans.
@TheAllMemeingEye no I don't think that's what it is. Culture might be part of it but it's not the same