
Resolves YES if sensitive government data is breached via DOGE. Resolves NO otherwise. This can resolve to a percentage if there is a data breach but it's not clear whether it was caused by DOGE.
I will use my judgment to resolve this market and offer the following guidance as to what I am looking for in terms of a data breach.
DOGE includes DOGE initiatives, systems, processes, and employees, including cases where DOGE is working with other government departments.
This does not include authorized release of sensitive data. It does include data being stolen by adversaries, accidentally published on the internet, or being anonymously leaked to newspapers.
Update 2025-02-16: This does not include re-release of data that was publicly available prior to 2025-01-20.
This does not include temporary loss of access to data. It does include permanent loss of data due to ransomware, destructive attacks by adversaries, or accidental deletion of data.
Update 2025-02-16: data loss lasting for several days can also count as a data breach.
This does not include technical breaches of laws or regulations that increased the risk of a breach, if no breach occurs as a result, nobody is prosecuted, and nobody is pardoned. For example, Hillary Clinton's private email server was not a data breach for the purpose of this market.
Update 2025-02-16: This does not include temporary website defacement. It does include attackers gaining write access to sensitive data. It does include other data breaches that occurred during a website defacement attack.
Update 2025-04-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Intentional but Unauthorized Release:
Even if a data release is intentional, it must be unauthorized to count as a breach. Examples like the Snowden case illustrate that intentional actions can still be breaches if not properly authorized.
Government Affiliation Clarification:
Although DOGE is part of the government, its actions are not automatically considered authorized. Each incident must be evaluated to determine if the release was unauthorized.
Update 2025-04-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Doge Involvement Clarification:
Only breaches directly caused by DOGE count.
If another agency releases or publishes sensitive data accidentally or otherwise with no DOGE involvement, it does not qualify as a data breach for this market.
Update 2025-05-09 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the compromise of a DOGE employee's personal device (e.g., infected by malware), the following criteria are important for market resolution:
Whether the infected device was used for government work.
Whether the employee shared credentials with government accounts, and these credentials were potentially exposed or compromised as a result of the device's infection.
Update 2026-01-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Accidental vs. Intentional Publication:
The fact that DOGE deleted documents 16 minutes after posting them is evidence that the publication was accidental rather than intentional, which supports counting it as a data breach under the "accidentally published on the internet" criterion.
Update 2026-01-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Timing of Research and Resolution:
The creator waited until the market closed to conduct AI-powered research over the entire 12-month period to assess potential data breaches, taking advantage of improving AI capabilities and the possibility that news during the year might make resolution straightforward.
Update 2026-01-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Public Information Exclusion:
If the data that was published (such as tax ID, address, and contract information) was already publicly available prior to the incident, it does not count as a data breach for this market's purposes.
🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,416 | |
| 2 | Ṁ853 | |
| 3 | Ṁ802 | |
| 4 | Ṁ648 | |
| 5 | Ṁ475 |
People are also trading
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/21/doge-social-security-data
resolved incorrectly and too early @mods
@Lorelai unfortunately the market closed at the end of 2025, and I don't see any information about this until this year. if you have an article dated before market close (this was a late resolution, it should have resolved on Dec 30) I'll re-resolve but if not, it's still a No.
@shankypanky I mean, all you have to do is read the comments below for evidence from last year.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355896/doge-nlrb-elon-musk-spacex-security
"they started detecting suspicious log-in attempts from an IP address in Russia, according to the disclosure. Eventually, the disclosure continued, the IT department launched a formal review of what it deemed a serious, ongoing security breach or potentially illegal removal of personally identifiable information"
I know this is why I had mana on yes. And probably why others did too, because it was always clear the answer is that yes, DOGE did.
Might be resolved a tad prematurely, see https://www.axios.com/2026/01/20/doge-employees-social-security-information-court-filing
@Kire_ Seems to be covered as CUI here: https://www.acquisition.gov/hudar/2452.237-83-access-controlled-unclassified-information-cui.
There was an attempt to redact which is further evidence.
@MartinRandall Often CUI will have portion markings which I don't see in the screenshots: https://www.archives.gov/files/cui/documents/marking-introduction-20170906.pdf
@MartinRandall I think community consensus would indicate that intentionally publishing parts of a contract on X.com would not constitute a "data breach" but it's up to you to decide how to resolve.
@MartinRandall The documents were never technically deleted, they just made an updated version of the tweet, if that changes anything. Link to original tweet: https://x.com/DOGE/status/1890497472646054029
@LuisPedroCoelho I waited until the market closed to do the AI-powered research over the entire 12 month period, given that AIs are improving and sometimes news makes a market like this very easy to resolve. There's a reason the market didn't get driven down to 1%. Still considering the situation.
@Kire_ It looks like the tax id and address are already public information, eg https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/corporationsearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=AEGISLOANSERVICING%20B060000001330&aggregateId=forlp-b06000000133-4362b546-fd39-4bd0-8e2f-e10a69fa3a24&searchTerm=AEGIS%20IOM%2C%20LLC&listNameOrder=AEGISIOM%20L170001433600
And the contract info itself was public at Federal Procurement Data System (hence a lot of ribbing of DOGE for "uncovering" contracts that were already public data).
SSA information found on unprotected server: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/us/politics/doge-social-security-data.html
@b8kd6y not known at this time whether the infected devices were used for government work or whether he shared credentials with government accounts.
Whistleblower alleges internal investigation at NLRB over data breach: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355896/doge-nlrb-elon-musk-spacex-security

