Will the LK-99 room temp, ambient pressure superconductivity pre-print replicate before 2025?

Preprint here:


Companion paper here with description of synthesis:


Update 2023-08-05:

Updating to answer some more common questions. If anything here differs from the 2023-07-27 update, this update should supersede that one. I believe what I have written below maintains the spirit of the market and preserves its predictivity against weird edge cases.

Materials Impurities:

This question is specifically about LK-99. In the absence of overwhelming expert consensus (see below about resolution caveats), adding materials not in the original synthesis or characterization (replacing Cu with Au, Ag, etc) will not count toward a YES resolution. 

Removing impurities (like CuS) is OK.

Increasing impurities that were also present in LK-99 original XRD is OK, up to a point. I think I would be more accepting of this is it’s convincingly shown that the impurities are important to the superconductivity of LK-99. 

Synthesis of LK-99 by other means is totally fine, as long as the material characterization satisfies the criteria above. 


The original intent of this market was to bet on whether LK-99 exhibited the hallmarks of traditional superconductivity, but there have been a few questions on what happens if LK-99 is regions of 1D superconductivity in an insulating matrix, so it doesn’t display the expected R = 0 behavior below Tc. 

At this point, I’m going to hew to the original resolution criteria, in order of importance. 

Demonstration of:

  1. Meissner effect

  2. R = 0 below Tc (satisfied by electric field < 0.1 - 1 uV/cm or resistivity < ~10^-11 Ohm*cm)

  3. Phase change

While superconductor-insulator transitions have been observed, I’m not really familiar with them. Additionally, we don’t have good evidence that it is impossible to observe R=0 in LK-99, since at least some measurements show decreasing resistivity as a function of temperature. If we end up in a world where LK-99 convincingly displays a Meissner effect, but doesn’t show the expected resistivity behavior, I will solicit opinions from subject matter experts. After all, it would seem perverse to resolve NO if the majority of superconductivity experts think this is a YES.

Resolution Caveats:

I reserve the right to resolve to a probability if the experts I ask are split on the question of superconductivity.

I reserve the right to resolve according to whatever Wikipedia says about this material by Jan 1, 2025, especially if the experts I ask blow me off.

I reserve the right to revisit the resolution criteria if LK-99 or LK-99-like materials end up rewriting what we thought we knew about superconductivity. 


Update 2023-07-27:

Pasting my comment on resolution criteria

We're clearly all here because a) it's fun, and b) we're interested in room temperature superconductivity, not whether some other experimental group gets the same kinda sus data as the original paper. So, when I write 'replicate' in the question I am specifically asking: is the room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity of the compound LK-99 convincingly demonstrated?

Specifically, replications should convincingly demonstrate:

  1. Zero DC electrical resistivity (or something close enough if the measurement is AC).

  2. A phase change*, which is usually exhibited as a sharp discontinuity in the heat capacity.

  3. The Meissner effect (magnetic fields expelled).

If synthesizing the compound, there should be evidence that they did make something essentially the same as what is reported in the original paper.

2) has an asterisk because @BenjaminShindel suggests that a phase change might not be required for a quantum well superconductor. I think I see how this could be the case. Willing to adjust this criterion after receiving more info from relevant theorists/experimentalists.

I don't intend to require that replications be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The arXiv is sufficient for me. However, I do intend to wait a few weeks/months to resolve so that any pre-print can be adequately investigated for data manipulation, fraud, etc. In my utopia, labs that claim to have confirmed/disconfirmed this effect would also publish their raw data with their arXiv submissions, but I'm not holding my breath.

Since high Tc superconductivity is not my specific field of expertise, I'm willing to defer to a consensus of subject matter experts on whether a pre-print is convincing or not, and I am willing to contact some beyond the usual twitter personalities.

Get Ṁ500 play money

Related questions

Sort by:
RorySpeirs avatar
Rory Speirsbought Ṁ236 of NO


If you have a "yes" position, can you please just sell. The case is closed. You get a little mana back, and we get to slurp up what is due to us.

The sooner this market goes to zero, the sooner we can all bet big on the next crazy internet thing. It's more fun that way!

PlasmaBallin avatar
Plasma Ballin'bought Ṁ100 of NO

@RorySpeirs On the contrary, I would encourage all YES bettors to double down so that we can take more of their mana.

MarcusAbramovitch avatar
Marcus Abramovitchbought Ṁ7,000 of NO

Surely some whale can come in now and rip the market down @NinthCause

jim avatar
james o bought Ṁ1 YES at 4%
Sanargama avatar
Sanargama bought Ṁ150 NO at 3%
HanchiSun avatar
Hanchi Sun
Comment hidden
jack avatar
Jackpredicts NO

Wrong paper. That's not LK99, it's the other supposed superconductor this year (from Ranga Dias)

VerySeriousPoster avatar

@jack If I had a nickel for every retracted superconductor...

jim avatar
james opredicts YES

@VerySeriousPoster if I had a nickel for every time a NO holder proves how ignorant they are...

DavidKochanov avatar
David Kochanovpredicts YES

@jim To me nature are the funny ones because they published the paper from the article and then retracted it 3 years later. Shortly after the lk99 paper came out they wrote an op-ed about how bad arxiv is and how if people stuck to peer review stuff like that would never happen...

VerySeriousPoster avatar
jim avatar
james opredicts YES

@VerySeriousPoster I bet YES because this market is going to resolve YES. You are just one ignorant NO holder the more (in spirit if not in fact).

FrederickNorris avatar
Frederick Norris

@VerySeriousPoster Keeping track of failed superconductors is tough.

jim avatar
james opredicts YES

@DouglasCampbell that market closes a year earlier than this one. P.S., are

you at Canterbury?

jim avatar
james obought Ṁ77 of YES

Any peer-reviewed replication attempts yet?

Ernie avatar
Erniepredicts NO

NO brotherhood let us make our final stand at 4% and with the weight of our will we will crush the last defenders

ian avatar
Ian Philips bought Ṁ50 NO at 3%
Ernie avatar
Erniepredicts NO

@Ernie I do wish we had partial percent limit orders now though. It's so hard to push the price down and there are nearly no signals

firstuserhere avatar
firstuserhere bought Ṁ5,000 NO at 3%
Markurian avatar
Markurianpredicts YES

@Ernie Hahaha, "No Bros" 🤣

Ernie avatar
Erniebought Ṁ1,000 of NO

What happened?

Sell out now before you lose even more mana.



DanPowell avatar
Dan Powellpredicts YES

@Ernie Free mana for any of them who bets there and liquidates for a moment here.

33cb avatar
Александр Мельниковpredicts YES

@DanPowell they don't have mana to buy these positions now, and the liquidation is negative payout becuse of loans.

Ernie avatar
Erniepredicts NO

Doubling the bonus for getting the first trade at 2%:::: it is now 1000 mana to anyone achieving this fear. Via managram.

firstuserhere avatar
firstuserherepredicts NO

@Ernie just any minute now

Ernie avatar
Erniepredicts NO

@firstuserhere heh that is how much to 2% flat right? Wonder how much til 2.4999

deagol avatar
Daniel Tellopredicts NO
Ernie avatar
Erniepredicts NO

Not that much! There are people with enough YES to do it right now!