(Forbes article about his post)
Will it happen? If it does what will be true?
For ease of common parlance, "stimulus check" in this market is referring to the "dividends" of his post. If this becomes a completely unsustainable metaphor, some answers may need to resolve or be rewritten.
Will resolve to best reporting, at latest by the end of his time in office or within a few months after the checks go out to let news stories shake loose. If the check doesn't materialize before he leaves office, answers that are able to will resolve to YES or NO rather than N/A. (If that happens, I hope it's clear that most would resolve NO, but I imagine "All for the same amount" probably has to resolve N/A since it can be easily read as YES and NO if there are no checks)
Clarifications:
Because this "resolves to best reporting", the answer to most clarifying questions about "What does 'some' or 'significant' mean?" is: does the news report on it as a big deal?
The base value of the dividend per person is what matters. If you can get $2000 cash but also have options for a $2100 tax credit or a $1900 instant deposit, that's a $2000 check
If the base value doesn't end up being the same per person and ends up straddling over one of the answers, the answer resolves to the percent across the line (say 20% of receivers only get $100 and the other 80% get $300, then "≥$200" resolves to 80%)
"non-citizens or non-existent persons" is intentionally broad in order to also include companies, AIs, and fraud
Real implementation is what we're measuring, so if judicial/ legislative intervention changes anything, or reporting shows it's not aligned with announcements, that's what matters
AI Gibberish Area, occasionally deleted:
Update 2025-11-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer about "non-citizens or non-existent persons": This includes legal resident aliens (even though they were eligible for previous stimulus rounds). The answer is intentionally broad to cover multiple scenarios:
Whether Trump attempts to exclude non-citizen legal residents (differently from previous stimuli)
Whether distribution flaws create exploitable gaps for bad actors
Whether "dividends" are actually directed to corporations instead of individuals (trickle-down economics approach)
1,000People are also trading
@jgyou yep! there's a large possibility space I'm trying to cover very roughly, though they might interfere with each other:
will trump try to exclude non-citizen legal residents, in ways they weren't for previous stimuli?
will the distribution be so flawed as to have exploitable gaps for bad actors?
will the "dividends" not actually be aimed at citizens at all but instead pushed out to corporations under the veil of trickle-down economics?
and so forth
if this is a market where you can still add options, might i suggest adding "Trump signs an executive order to make it" and "it gets blocked by a federal judge"
@Marnix I feel like Congress vs. Executive Order is mostly covered by the one answer, though I know there's plenty of space for nuance. I can still add it if people are hungry for it. Blocked by a federal judge is a good shout though so I'll definitely drop that in.
@spiderduckpig You mean like the <= 70 vs. <= 90? They're as written on the tin. If the relevant number is 60, both <= 70 and <= 90 resolve YES, whereas if it's 95 both of those would resolve NO.
@spiderduckpig or are you asking about whether "the number that Trump announces" is more important than "the number that actually gets used"? in all cases reality trumps intent here
@spiderduckpig oh my god it took me half a day but I finally understand your question. yeah so it's if the limit is at that or lower. I will edit the answers to be more clear