reuters.com

reuters.com

What if this is some sort of buy-one-get-one-free deal? i.e. You get a stock if you buy one first.

@Quroe that absolutely shouldn’t count

@Quroe that very likely would not count.

i see two related concerns.

(1) that doesn't feel like a "gift". this is subjective. but "buy-one-get-one-free" is its own thing, and with gifts, "you know it when you see it".

(2) there is allowed to be some friction in receiving the gift (e.g., administrative processes you need to handle). "buy-one-get-one-free" imo seems like too much friction.

i don't want to be too absolutist about it—some administrative processes might add up to more time/effort than buying a spacex share! but nonetheless, it's normal to handle laborious administrative processes to receive something like this, and not normal to have to buy a spacex share. and there could be some scenario where something like this is even more generous than the original gift, so i don't want to wholly rule it out (i.e., say it has to be zero strings attached). but "buy-one-get-one-free" is its own thing and would not satisfy this market.

How do you resolve it if he does so using the "Trump accounts" as a vehicle, like Gwynne Shotwell did with her stock donation?

@MattP that can count (and fwiw that was my understanding of what he’s claiming)

@Ziddletwix got it, just making sure. And you've decided that if the process starts in 2026 the market resolves no? It has to start in 2027?

@MattP yes. fwiw, i intend to be "generous" with what counts as "within 2027"—e.g., if there's some stuff that happens in 2026 and some stuff that happens in 2027 and it's unclear exactly which date to pick, i will very likely resolve this YES (erring on the side of 2027).

reasoning: the spirit of this question is more about whether musk lives up to something like the promise in the tweet. in phrasing the question, i followed something pretty close to his literal wording ("next year"). since the description is unambiguous about it being "within 2027", i don't like to go against an unambiguous written description after ppl have bet, so it's best to stick with that (i.e., if he suddenly completes this gift tomorrow, that wouldn't count).

HOWEVER, i'll issue a wording clarification that might be relevant. in the description, i wrote:

They don't need to receive the money within 2027. If a consensus of credible reporting says that Musk has initiated the process within the calendar year of 2027, then I'll leave the market open and it can resolve once the money is received

the phrase "initiated the process" is not meant to be binding about when i date the gift. it's referring to the specific scenario: "it starts in 2027, but takes a while to complete". in that case, i'll look at when it "initiated". but that's a specific scenario—i'm not saying that i will look only for some narrow idea of what it meant to "initiate the process" (in some sense, this tweet initiated the process!).

so tl;dr: if the gift occurs in 2027 but he sorta initiates some part of it in 2026, that's still going to resolve YES. there will be some subjectivity here, but i'll be looking for some sense of what it means to actually give a gift.

nothing ever happens

Would putting them in trust for them be considered differently from giving them to each child individually in their own name for resolving this market? This could either be a permanent thing or just until the details have been adequately established to transfer the shares. Would either or both of these result in a yes resolution?

@ChristopherRandles my instinct is that this would count. Roughly, what matters is how credible it seems that a typical parent/kid will actually get the money. If it’s just a promise of a future gift, that doesn’t count. If it’s transferred to a trust in 2027 and then it takes another year to finalize the details, I’ll leave the market open until it’s done (but that can count). If there are some restrictions on how long until kids can access it, that can still count (if it’s clearly being held in their name).

If you outline a specific scenario i can opine on whether it would count.

When I see a question asking whether Musk will [insert Musk’s promise or prediction] I bet no without reading the rest of the sentence.

i'm betting no because if this happens in 2026 it doesn't count

@jim hmmm tbh i probably meant to word it such that it's "before EOY 2027" but the wording is pretty explicit atm that it's just 2027 so i'll leave it that way

@Ziddletwix when jim sees an edge, he pounces like a lion

@Ziddletwix wait wut

@bens oh wait that's fine

@jim But isn't it next year because he cannot sell (or give away) for a year after the IPO?

@ChristopherRandles you're thinking in wall clock time which will quickly obsolesce later this year.

the extent to which technology happens in time versus time happening in technology is going to shift dramatically

@jim Could you give a timeframe for this? I'd like to know if it makes sense to replace my stopped clock...

Suppose that he starts gifting the shares on May 1, 2027, so only children who are born before that date are eligible. This means that probably <90% of children who are <5 years old and American citizens during the year 2027 would be eligible, since this rule would cut off every child who's <7 months old by the end of December. But if he's also giving shares to children above 5 years old, which he probably would, it intuitively seems like this should count as >90%. How would the market resolve in this scenario?

@CDBiddulph the intent of the market is to count that. so i'll tweak the wording.

i've changed it to

<5 years old at the start of 2027

for who is being counted here. that does mean if Musk focuses only on newer children born going forward, that doesn't count, but i think that's fair (as just 2027-born kids would be a much smaller group and not at all what the tweet says)