From
Forecasters estimated the probability that Elon Musk would significantly back a third party in the midterm elections to be 27% (range: 10% to 50%). This would involve committing significant sums of money (>$100M), making public endorsements comparable to those he made during the 2024 Presidential campaign, or even setting up a third party himself.
For the purpose of this market, these are considered central examples of the kind of clear backing that would resolve this market positively.
1,000People are also trading
@Ziddletwix Ah in the sentinel report it says
Forecasters estimated the probability that Elon Musk would significantly back a third party in the midterm elections to be 27% (range: 10% to 50%). This would involve committing significant sums of money (>$100M), making public endorsements comparable to those he made during the 2024 Presidential campaign, or even setting up a third party himself.
Would using that be a fine operationalization? Maybe add a like ‘or if it’s otherwise clear or consensus of credible reporting bc like if he helps his friend start a third party and funds it with 90M seems like the spirit is met
@Bayesian I think it would be fine enough if you want to resolve just based on your judgment of the title, but if you want some basic operationalization, i think the details provided in their full blog post are reasonable enough (& would help align this market with their forecast):
Forecasters estimated the probability that Elon Musk would significantly back a third party in the midterm elections to be 27% (range: 10% to 50%). This would involve committing significant sums of money (>$100M), making public endorsements comparable to those he made during the 2024 Presidential campaign, or even setting up a third party himself.
@Bayesian oops posted at the same time. but yeah imo it's nice to use the same operationalization as them so the forecasts align. but also fine to add some clause to clarify that these are just examples of what would count, and not strict criteria