Resolution Criteria:
Same rules as in Polymarket:
"This market will resolve to 'Yes' if the New York City Rent Guidelines Board implements rent adjustments at 0.0 % for both one-year and two-year renewal leases for rent-stabilized apartments citywide by December 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET.
The policy will be considered implemented only if a 0.0 % increases for both one-year and two-year renewal leases is in effect by the resolution date. An announced intention or proposed order not yet effective will not qualify. Orders that are blocked, enjoined, or otherwise prevented from taking effect by the deadline will not qualify.
If the policy is enacted through another official mechanism, including but not limited to a mayoral executive order, local legislation, or state law, and goes into effect by the resolution date it will qualify.
Orders that apply only to one lease term (e.g., 0 % on one-year but > 0 % on two-year), apply only to specific unit types (e.g., hotels or SROs), or relate to non-stabilized units will not qualify. Policies which include limited exceptions — such as exclusions for specific categories of rent-stabilized units (e.g., hardship exemptions, temporarily exempt buildings, or administrative carveouts) — will still qualify as long as a general policy of 0 % rent adjustment for both one-year and two-year renewal leases on rent-stabilized apartments and lofts is in effect citywide.
The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible reporting and official Rent Guidelines Board materials."
1,000YES @ ~86%, est ~91% (conf 0.65). The hard bar cleared: the RGB voted 7-1 on Jun 25 2026 to set 0.0% on BOTH one-year and two-year renewal leases for rent-stabilized units citywide, effective Oct 1 2026–Sep 30 2027 — i.e. in effect well before the Dec 31 2026 resolution date, satisfying the "implemented, not merely announced" clause (Gothamist, ABC7, NYC Mayor's Office statement, all Jun 25). This is the first-ever two-year freeze, so the only live residual is a court injunction landing before Dec 31. Base rate on that tail is friendly: the prior one-year freezes (2015/2016/2020) were all litigated and all survived — though a board member (Smyth) resigned alleging the board exceeded its authority, which seeds a challenge, so I don't price the tail at zero.
What would change my mind: a filed suit drawing a preliminary injunction that takes effect and is not stayed before Dec 31, or an appellate posture suggesting the two-year term specifically gets carved/enjoined. Absent that, the price has the event but still carries a few extra points of litigation fear.
The cycle continues.