Hi KS,
Cool market in theory but lots of pitfalls to navigate and the resolution criteria are far too vague to consider placing any serious trades here.

Here are some of my initial questions:
-Will the Metaculus question you posted [Metaculus question 1637] be used for resolution?
-What if a "closer" question is posted?
-How will you determine which Metaculus question is closer to your original question?
-Is there a minimum number of forecasters needed on the Metaculus question for reliable data?
-Will you eventually join the Metaculus community and ask the exact question?

@EstMtz

1. Yes

2. I'll revamp to fit my resolution to that, if that question has more voters

3. If the wording is more specific to crewed Generation Starship flight if sufficiently long travel time to count as a "Generation Starship", at minimum, a 200 year journey and not labelled vaguely as "interstellar", although 1637 is currently the best

4. Above 100 seems a safe bet, error bars on that sample should be +/- 10%, so, it is atleast enough to make something of a prediction, than a complete shot in the dark

5. I have joined the community, but will not ask the question, as that will pollute the resolution process

(Figures Cross-Checked with AI, Fable 5.1)

Resolution oracle: Metaculus question 1637, community (recency-weighted) forecast, read at 31 Jul 2030 using the PDF toggle at 15 Sep 2150. Metaculus displays this as 200 × the probability of the surrounding ~4-year bucket. YES requires that value ≥ 8.0 (≈1% per year) AND a certified ≥$2T net worth before 1 Jul 2030. NO if either condition fails.

NO if question 1637 is closed, annulled, or the display changes so the value can't be read. Today's value is 1.548; I will not resolve early or on judgement calls.

I am measuring whether serious forecasters on metaculus will resolve at above 1% per year for 2150 for a generation starship, the question is phrased as 'interstellar', interstellar is according to Fable 5.1 high 120 AU under what I view as a literal reading, even so, extrapolating from this, it seems unlikely that metaculus will rule at a greater than 1% chance currently for 2150, hence, currently the resolution is NO

For p(x) = 2150, community is x=1.548 as of writing, quadruple checked with data from the question and cross-referenced with Fable 5.1 high, 2148-2152 represents a 0.77% chance, 2150 a 0.19% chance, will resolve to NO at current position, will resolve to YES, if x= 8.0 and Bloomberg Billionaires Index or its widely recognized equivalent certifies any individual's net worth at or above $2.0 Trillion (USD) at any point before July 1, 2030

Closest question to the one I posed, on Metaculus, currently

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/1637/date-when-humans-exit-solar-system/

The criteria of this question is so confusing

@realTomBayes Sorry about that, it's my first

And how does it resolve if nobody reaches a net work of $2 trillion?

@A It has two parts, $2T by 2030 or hundreds of trillions by 2100, which is more likely

@KeshavSapru The way a prediction market works is that you should define precisely how it will resolve in each real world future scenario, and then let the market determine the predicted probability based on that definition. If you leave a bunch of scenarios not well defined because you personally don't think they're likely then the question will be very confusing to resolve and people will complain about it later.

@A Yes, I admit my proposal is flawed, it is my first, but I suppose it allows people to weigh two separate scenarios

@KeshavSapru Okay, but with what weight between the two?

@A I think that a rich person having hundreds of trillions of dollars by 2100 is more likely than 2 trillion by 2030, because of compounding interest, but more likely doesn't mean that 2 trillion by 2030 is impossible

@KeshavSapru Can you just make a list for all possible combinations of {whether someone has $2 trillion, whether the metaculus question gets created, whether it's above 1%} and state whether it would resolve yes, no, or n/a in that case?

It's so confusing to have multiple questions asked and not clarify what is the specific connection between them.

@KeshavSapru To clarify again -- the whole point of prediction market is not to just go off your opinion of what's likely, but instead what's the marker's opinion of what's likely. But we can't do that unless you define clearly what you are actually asking the market.

If you prefer to just state your opinion on what's likely that's fine, but then there is no point to this market.

@A For example, right now I believe that this will most likely resolve no, but that's only because I think that exact metaculus question will not be asked, and it appears that means you will resolve the question no in that case. But it's not obvious and the uncertainty is mostly in what you will do not the actual starship stuff that you're interested in learning about.

@A That's okay then, it means that with all the conditions I've placed, it won't resolve, and perhaps in the future, someone can use this question as a foundation to ask other questions. As long as you are able to answer my question, I consider it a success

@A I'll observe the marker and resolve accordingly

Where is the metaculus question?

@Jack1 They haven't asked the question yet, I believe

@KeshavSapru what happens if they never ask it

@Jack1 Then I suppose, you would say no, that's why I split the question, because I asked my raw question and then the question that AI asked me to write because apparantly it was better for prediction markets

@KeshavSapru

so how will this market resolve if they don’t ask

@Jack1 Based off the first part, you'll have to weigh what is more important