https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter
This resolves once we have a definitive explanation for dark matter that is not contested by any significant fraction of the physics community.
In the event that the phrase "dark matter" comes to mean something else (such as our observational methods improving to the point where we can directly detect some forms of dark matter and we no longer call them "dark"), the 2022 definition is what will matter for the purposes of resolving this market.
In the event that dark matter doesn't exist (e.g. modified Newtonian dynamics), this resolves N/A. I'll be pretty liberal in terms of what counts as "matter" though, in the event of disagreement over whether some new particle should qualify.
@mariopasquato would be logical to resolve it to 100%, I think. If there is no new matter, then all the dark matter we thought of is baryonic
@CyfralCoot We have the ability to think up non-existent stuff though. What percentage of phlogiston is made up of oxygen? I get what you are saying but from a different angle your suggestion sounds like setting 0/0=1.
@mariopasquato Yes, that's something I didn't consider... Although we can say that oxygen causes nearly 100% of "phlogiston behaviour".... And it seems very unlikely that the dark matter is completely non-existent like phlogiston. There's too much evidence towards the existance of some invisible mass
@IsaacKing You might as well say that all of the (non-existent) dark matter is X, where X is any property, including being baryonic. But if you say you will resolve to 0% then that’s great.
@mariopasquato BTW, some of the alternate explanations I heard only fail to count as "matter" by dint of the authors using a definition of "matter" narrow enough that most people in 1850 didn't believe water to be "matter"