This market will resolve to "Yes" if ChatGPT reaches 1 billion monthly active users (MAUs) during by December 31, 2025, 11:59 PMET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No."
The primary resolution source will be official information from OpenAI, however a consensus of reputable sources including, major analytics firms (e.g. Similarweb, Sensor Tower), investor or regulatory disclosures, or reputable media may also be used.
Update 2025-12-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that robots do not count towards the total; users should ideally be human.
Update 2025-12-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator indicated that 900 million weekly active users would be considered strong evidence for 1 billion monthly active users for resolution purposes.
Updates 2025-12-22 (PST):
(AI summary of creator comment): The creator's main concern is verifying the reliability of the WAU statistics being reported and if the 900 WAU figure may include API users inflating the number rather than being purely human users.
(AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that if ChatGPT actually has 900 million weekly active human users, the burden of proof would be on showing it is NOT 1 billion MAU, since mainstream apps typically have 70-90% MAU stickiness (ratio of MAU to WAU). However, the creator did not state the market would resolve YES by default based on 900 WAU alone.
(AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that the (Edit:I think this clarification is probably just incorrect, and users should be assumed human by default).
default assumption is NOT that all users are human. The burden of proof is on theYES camp to demonstrate that the users are human, rather than assuming WAU statistics represent human users by default.
Update 2025-12-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator is considering resolving this market to their percent confidence in the bot/human ratio rather than a binary YES/NO, given the uncertainty about whether the reported 900 million WAU represents human users as required by the resolution criteria.
1,000People are also trading
@ian sure, but having to prove user/bot numbers is incredibly difficult if not impossible. inferring MAUs from WAUs was already a very liberal interpretation of the criteria, adding a new requirement to the official/secondary sources is too much
@256 I don't think that merits an N/A resolution, which are very bad. If people thought it would be too hard to identify the human users then they shouldn't have traded. So they either assumed the users would mean human users, which is what I did, or they assumed whatever number we would get would be a good enough approximation. I'm leaning towards resolving to a prob of my credence of how trustworthy sam's number is and the human/bot ratio. I'm also open to asking in the mod channel for their input for a prob resolution, but I am not disposed to an N/A resolution.
@ian im not sure i follow.
> The primary resolution source will be official information from OpenAI, however a consensus of reputable sources including, major analytics firms (e.g. Similarweb, Sensor Tower), investor or regulatory disclosures, or reputable media may also be used.
this does not mention any discussion or requirement of human / bot numbers. it was about monthly active users, as reported by OpenAI or trusted media / firms
if sam altman goes on a podcast tomorrow and says "we have 1.3 billion monthly active users for chatgpt", would that not be enough for a 100% YES resolution?
@256 the clarification in my mind is more for, if it turns out there’s some botting scam to pump the numbers, that wouldn’t count bc they should be genuine users
@256 i think i got confused earlier about who had to prove what. users should mostly be assumed human.
@25112019 3 billion people are lucky enough to specifically use Facebook every month
Just because you say it funny doesn’t change any of the numbers. FYI 1 billion users doesn’t require 1 billion people, because people who use multiple accounts or no account often count for multiple unique user sessions
@Gen Thank you for discussion. The burden of proof is on the YES camp to demonstrate that the users are human, - (not just sessions).
Check how flooded Facebook is with bots: it often looks like there are 10 bots for every real person.
Speaking from own experience, I know far more people who have never thought about using ChatGPT at all than those who have used Facebook.
It seems to us that Facebook has really become a marketplace in West or a game platform for most.
But the marketing claim of the idea of 3 billion monthly HUMAN users (especially in the 1 world) feels highly inflated and simply not true
@25112019 Sure, I think bots are a bigger problem on Facebook than ChatGPT. What do we even count as bot usage on ChatGPT? It is, itself, a bot
Obviously fake users shouldn’t count, but if they’re getting 900M WAUs it seems very likely those are all human (recurring sessions/visits/accounts) and so I’d expect their MAU number to be something ridiculous because of single sessions (could be 2-3B++) which is why I assume they don’t bother to market it.
Facebook is a social platform so the incentives to bot are very different. You wouldn’t make multiple bot ChatGPT accounts (what’s the point?) like you would on Facebook
@Gen Using multiple (hundreds of) chat-GPT accounts provides a free usage threshold, so there’s no need to pay at all.
It’s a optimization strategy - may be even more profitable than creating bots on Facebook
Also:
Monthly active users (MAU) is usually smaller than weekly active users (WAU) because the monthly count includes all unique users who interacted with a platform at least once in a 30-day period, while the weekly count is the total of unique users who engaged each week, summed across four weeks. However, since many users interact multiple times within a month, they are only counted once in the monthly total, but may be counted in multiple weekly totals if they use the platform in different weeks.
For example, if 100 people use the platform in week 1, and 100 different people use it in week 2, but there is no overlap, the weekly total is 200, but the monthly total is only 200 if no one uses it in both weeks. If there is overlap, the monthly total will be less than the sum of the weekly totals.
@MindBenderMads "the market creator allowed users to influence the market" -- what does this even mean?
@MindBenderMads what you said about WAU/MAU makes no sense. Dont spread (more) confusion in the comments.
@Dulaman it means that if I scroll down I only see your comments saying that this markets will resolve yes 100%, whereas we are just waiting for confirmation.
