Will the Trump administration offer Elon Musk a decent return for the time, effort, and political capital that he spent on backing Donald Trump?
Resolves NO if in my best guess based on public or shareable info, it looks like Donald Trump did not repay Elon Musk's backing, actively undermined Musk, decided that he was on the outs with Musk without Musk having previously clearly acted against Trump, etcetera. Resolves YES if my subjective judgment is that Musk struck first, or Trump acted in good faith until the point of a mutual break. If Trump doesn't specifically act against Musk, but Musk receives little or nothing in exchange for backing Trump, resolves NO.
This would resolve NO if Musk receives as little for backing Trump as Peter Thiel received for backing Trump in the 2016 election cycle. (E.g., Jim O'Neill was previously tipped to become FDA head, but did not become FDA head.) (I am open to hearing about how Trump repaid Thiel and I didn't hear about it yet.)
May resolve YES early if it's clear early in the Trump administration that Trump is already making a good-faith effort to fully repay Musk's backing, even if they end up on the outs later.
This isn't limited to selfish repayment; it counts if Musk obtains altruistic political desiderata.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ8,195 | |
| 2 | Ṁ5,362 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,423 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,002 | |
| 5 | Ṁ935 |
@EliezerYudkowsky Долг имеет красный цвет при выплате. 👺
mod edit (google translation): Debt is red when paid. 👺
@EliezerYudkowsky You could wait until DOGE changes regulations in a way that benefits Musk's companies. If that's happened already, I haven't heard of it
@IsaacLinn I am obviously self-interested as the largest YES holder, but please remember that the point of reference at the time of the market creation was the level of repayment Peter Thiel had (not) received in 2016.
I think the level of influence Musk has been granted by Trump is beyond all expectations people had on the election day, more than meeting the threshold suggested by the market description,
May resolve YES early if it's clear early in the Trump administration that Trump is already making a good-faith effort to fully repay Musk's backing, even if they end up on the outs later.
Looking at it from another angle, imagine a world where Trump gives Musk as much as he has between November 5th and today, but spread over the entire four years. Would it be enough to resolve the market? I think the answer is yes.
@IsaacLinn https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/25/business/musk-faa-starlink-contract/index.html
Maybe exactly the thing you are asking for hasn't happened yet, but things are happening
Exclusive: FDA staff reviewing Musk’s Neuralink were included in DOGE employee firings, sources say
close and resolve
@Marnix US says it will drop immigration case against SpaceX
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-says-it-will-drop-immigration-case-against-spacex-2025-02-21/
https://www.reuters.com/world/indias-modi-holds-meeting-with-billionaire-tesla-ceo-musk-2025-02-13/
I'm withdrawing my objection. I think YES is overdue over the past week.
If this isn't a YES I don't know what is.
@Predictor If it helps your conscience while driving the Swastikar you bought from Edolf Muskler
(of course it was, i'm making fun of this, while also genuinely thinking it may sway the resolution, because people treat those things as if they were real)
I'm pushing even harder for a yes resolution https://www.laborrelationsupdate.com/2025/02/breaking-nlrb-drops-opposition-to-spacexs-constitutionality-arguments/
I'm pushing even harder for a yes resolution
@Marnix another thing I can wholeheartedly agree with with the liberally-minded people. We'll end up on the same side yet
I think the fact that Elon has seemingly sole control over who and what goes on at the departments that have contracts with him, regulate him, and might criticize him should probably be enough to resolve this YES, right?? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/doge-noaa-headquarters
@Marnix we should wait for delayed outcomes rather acting fast here IE evidence that Musk actually benefited from DOGE actions in areas of his companies' interests
@JoshuaWilkes
"if it's clear early in the Trump administration that Trump is already making a good-faith effort to fully repay Musk's backing"
I think it is obvious that Trump considers power as the kind of thing it is suitable to pay people with, so as far as his attempt is concerned this market should already be settled. That doesn't mean Trump is right about what is good or bad.
@DavidBolin I agree. I think putting Elon in the position to at-will remove people, regardless of whether or not he actually uses it to benefit himself, is, on its face, repayment. I don't think we need to wait to see if he uses it to self-deal. If Jim O'Neal's appointment would have resolved this yes for Thiel, this is definitely enough.
@Marnix however, if we do want to wait to see if he uses the position to benefit his companies, there's also this report, which should probably also this resolve YES. https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-enemy-usaid-was-investigating-starlink-over-its-contracts-in-ukraine-2000559365
"fully repay"
There are obviously reasons why this market is above 90%, and I'm not disputing that.
My betting reflects that if three months or even a year from now people, including Musk, think it was an error for him to back Trump, or at least a move that has not rewarded him and perhaps the opposite, I expect this market to resolve NO.
Trump has given Musk access to a lot of power, it's true. But it's been two weeks. If, within a reasonable timeframe, Trump removes that access and says or implies that Elon was abusing it for ends that Trump didn't intend, I don't think this should resolve YES.
That's even if some of the things that Elon did and some benefits he might actually accrue are not reversed. "Repay" and "fully repay" suggest a higher test.
(On rereading I accept that what I said above implies that I think any benefit accrued could trigger YES. I don't think that and what I've said here is a much fuller argument)
@Marnix agreed, the description had to specifically clarify:
This would resolve NO if Musk receives as little for backing Trump as Peter Thiel received for backing Trump in the 2016 election cycle. (E.g., Jim O'Neill was previously tipped to become FDA head, but did not become FDA head.)
This implies the line between NO and YES is somewhere around "getting a preferred candidate into an important federal position". It's almost quaint to read as a point of comparison. Elon has already been repaid with far more than that.
@JoshuaWilkes How and to what degree Elon benefits from Trump's repayment is irrelevant. All that matters is if Trump repaid the backing in good faith. If Elon squanders that backing, this should still resolve YES.