Resolution criteria:
This market will resolve to "Yes" if, by December 31, 2025, at least one sold Tesla vehicle autonomously drives from a Tesla facility directly to the buyer's house.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1912243208421023763?t=d8-LSblgX1Rv1jTho6LxxA&s=19
Update 2025-04-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Important Update:
If a human teleoperator is involved for safety purposes, the market will be resolved to 50%.
Update 2025-04-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Human Teleoperator Involvement
A drive involving any human safety operator sitting behind the wheel will not count toward a qualifying autonomous drive.
Update 2025-06-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If a Tesla employee delivers the car while sitting in the driver's seat with a stop button, the market will resolve to 10%.
Update 2025-06-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If a Tesla employee or supervisor delivers the car while sitting in the passenger seat, the market will resolve to 10%.
Update 2025-06-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has stated they may resolve this market as a percentage based on their judgment of two factors:
How autonomous the system is
How scalable the solution is
Update 2025-06-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator may evaluate all available evidence at the end of the year to resolve the market to a percentage between 50% and 100%. This will be based on a subjective judgment of how autonomous the system appears to be. High scalability of the service may reduce the need for independent evidence.
Update 2025-06-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided a more nuanced view on the involvement of a remote operator:
A remote operator supervising the trip without intervening is considered different from a remote operator being in control.
A trip with remote supervision but no intervention may resolve to over 50%, but likely not 100%.
The final resolution will also be evaluated based on how easily the autonomous delivery service scales.
Update 2025-06-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator will resolve the market before the end of 2025 if provided with proof that no remote operator was hired to supervise the delivery. Otherwise, the market will resolve at the end of 2025 based on an evaluation of all available evidence.
Update 2025-12-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market specifically refers to newly sold Teslas. An existing Tesla vehicle driving autonomously between locations does not qualify.
Update 2025-12-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator confirms that the first delivery with remote operator supervision occurred months ago, which is sufficient to resolve the market to 50%. If deliveries begin without remote operators before the end of 2025, the market will resolve to 100%.
Update 2025-12-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator will not change the resolution criteria that has been clarified multiple times over the past months, despite user requests to adjust the resolution percentage.
Update 2025-12-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator confirms the market will resolve to 50% based on the delivery that occurred with a teleoperator supervising (without intervening). The market will only resolve to 100% if something new happens before the end of 2025. The creator will not change the resolution criteria that has been established over the past months.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ3,657 | |
| 2 | Ṁ776 | |
| 3 | Ṁ459 | |
| 4 | Ṁ228 | |
| 5 | Ṁ170 |
People are also trading
Based on the "Teslas" (plural or a generalized multitude of vehicles of this company) in the question and the "at least one..." I would argue that even 50% is way to high for a PR stunt without repetition since a few months. For all we know it could have been 100% teleoperated, Tesla has shown zero evidence to the contrary, with regards to delivery or FSD in general. Their robotaxi fleet in Austin has not scaled up, which is a big sign that they still have a big technical or remote supervision bottleneck. I would suggest a resolution percentage in the 10-25% range. (disclaimer: I hold a big NO position and am super biased. But I am mainly biased since Tesla shows no proof and Musks overpromises and fakes everything)
@No_uh as long as the outlook is so set on 50% that would be stupid on my end. If the question author seems open to other percentages I might bet this further down, I still have liquidity
@tobiasscheuer I won't change my resolution criteria after months people bet on what had been clarified multiple times.
@SimoneRomeo While I understand the sentiment, let's recap: there was a PR stunt over which you resolved this question. Since there was no repeat, no scaling, no evidence of no teleoperation etc. you unresolved and wanted to wait for more to happen. Which was the right thing to do. And you said you want to use the percentage-resolution system based on how autonomous/supervised/"real" the delivery was. I.e. The current criteria of 50% for "supervision without intervention".
What if it the car was 100% teleoperated? What if it was 27% of the way? How would we know (real question, since it's hard to prove. I'll admit that)
@tobiasscheuer I initially resolved the market because I originally understood it was unsupervised. I unresolved because it became clear there was a teleoperator involved (even if they did not intervene), hence fulfilling my 50%
Resolution criteria but not my 100%. Nothing changed afterwards, this market will resolve 50% unless something new happens or you guys decide the market is misleading, you decide to report it to moderators, and let them handle however they want. Which is fine by me actually, I'd rather avoid being involved in Elon's markets, but I'm determined to resolve my current markets according to what I said I'd do
@SimoneRomeo I don't have to agree with your resolution criteria, only trade according to them. So thank you for clarifying :) I do think the situation with Teslas FSD/robotaxis is difficult to assess and I don't envy you. But I personally would have used different and more finetuned percentages for this market
@tobiasscheuer yeah, agreed. I made a lot of bad choices about this market. But what's done is done.
@NiklasBergstrom the first delivery through the supervision of a remote operator happened months ago which is enough to resolve 50%, if Elon Musk starts deliveries without remote operators in the next few days, the market will resolve 100%
Yet another question with a gigantic vast gulf between the question as written and the resolution criteria. Folks, if you want prediction markets to be a useful signal for anything, you gotta cut this crap out. The plain common sense interpretation of the question as written is that normal people can place an order for a Tesla and then take delivery at their house without it being towed or driven there. A reasonable person will look at the percentage and think it's the probability of that thing happening, not some finely parsed special case depending on scalability and in which seat someone was sitting or how involved they were. If a person intervenes in any way, it didn't drive itself. "At least one"? Why the heck is "Teslas", plural, part of the text of the question if you meant only one? Please for the love of God stop this nonsense.
@WilliamGunn not sure if you have ever tried to create a prediction market but it's incredibly difficult to forsee all possible future scenarios and define prediction criteria that will be great looking back.
When I created this market the resolution criteria seemed pretty reasonable and never I could imagine Elon Musk would deliver a meaningless stunt.
No one complained about the resolution criteria till after the stunt.
It's easy to look backwards and say the resolution criteria are bad. Than again, try to make better resolution criteria and whatever you pick, I'll show you edge cases that will make someone unhappy.
@MachiNi you have to admit that in the past Elon was not sticking to deadlines but only recently he started to pretend he met deadlines
@SimoneRomeo people should blame themselves for not reading the description
(I'm fine with whatever number between 50-100% you think is reasonable)
@Bair assuming that the AI clarifications are correct for the moment, the market requires that no human safety driver is in the driver's seat. FSD still requires that, right?
@Bair No, I think it's entirely reasonable to blame the question writer for not saying what they actually meant here. This one is egregiously bad.
@WilliamGunn yes, the title question can be formulated better. But the clarification is literally in the first sentence of the description. If someone can't read past the title on this website, that's on them.
@Bair If someone can't use language to say what they mean, that's also on them. I mean, this wasn't even hard: "Teslas" but actually only one counts.
I feel like I should take a position here just so I can give the resolution 1 star when the inevitable dumb thing happens & consider it a public service.