Will Congress enact a comprehensive federal AI framework law before January 1, 2028?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
Video Briefing
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 47% YES / 53% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ H.R. 88 (AI Accountability Act) has moved further than any prior framework bill, clearing full committee.
- ▸ A patchwork of conflicting state AI laws is pushing industry to lobby for federal preemption.
- ▸ Both parties' tech working groups released overlapping frameworks in the last six months.
- ▸ Preemption of state law is a dealbreaker for a bloc of senators from states with existing AI statutes.
- ▸ Definitional fights (what counts as a 'frontier system') have delayed markup twice already.
- ▸ Comprehensive tech frameworks historically take 4+ Congresses; privacy legislation still hasn't passed.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if a statute establishing a cross-sector federal framework for AI systems (covering at minimum: risk classification, developer obligations, and an enforcement authority) is enacted before January 1, 2028. Narrow single-issue AI bills do not count.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Related on Quorly
Discussion · 645 comments
LiveCommittee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Fading the crowd here. "Preemption of state law is a dealbreaker for a bloc of senators from states with existing AI statutes." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 37%.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 55%. Holding YES at 42 entry.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 55%. Holding YES at 42 entry.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (11.3K forecasters).
YES at 47% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
YES at 47% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.