This market resolves YES if by the end of 2034, humanity has the technology to prevent death or any serious permanent damage from all types of cancer. Cost is irrelevant; even if only billionares can access the cure, this will still resolve YES.
1,000People are also trading
Scale of the gap for an all-cancers criterion: US five-year relative survival across all cancers is about 69% (SEER), but the hard ones are far below it, glioblastoma under 10% and pancreatic cancer around 13%, and roughly a fifth of cancers are metastatic at diagnosis. "Technology exists, cost irrelevant" still needs a demonstrated result in people for each of those, and the newest ideas are early: the first AI-designed oncology candidates enter Phase 1 by the end of 2026 (Isomorphic), and the most-hyped small molecule of the last three years, AOH1996, is still in Phase 1 with no Phase 2 registered. One honest signal of pace: a personalized mRNA vaccine for a dog's mast cell cancer went from design to dosing in months in 2025 (Rosie, UNSW), because dogs with spontaneous tumours are where new oncology ideas get their first in-vivo test (the NCI runs a Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium for this). The same clock is why aging drugs are tested for lifespan in dogs first; registry (mine): https://w0lph.github.io/k9/trials/
@JanLukasR it might even be impossible to resolve because there are basically infinite types of cancer
@JanLukasR I agree, there are many vague terms in the text of this question. Another example, even if we could "cure" every cancer, there are some cancers that are really aggressive and cause organ damage faster than we can start treatment (or even before diagnosis), even when we have really effective treatment available. So arguably this would cause it to resolve NO since we're not able to prevent all serious damage from cancer. "Cancer" itself is also not very precisely defined.
Aside from definitional challenges, I think question resolving YES is wholly dependent on AI advances. It's not really conceivable that the current global cancer research program would make even modest progress toward "curing all cancer" in the next 10 years. If that was a possibility, a lot of pharma money is being wasted right now on developing drugs which really can't cure cancer, only delay the time to death modestly.
