Will average U.S. tariff rates on Chinese goods be reduced before 2027?
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.
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 27% YES / 73% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ Exclusion-process reinstatements for 140 product lines are pending final review.
- ▸ Importer coalitions cite tariff costs as a top-three inflation driver in official comments.
- ▸ A sectoral de-escalation framework has reportedly cleared working-level talks.
- ▸ Tariff toughness polls well with both parties' bases in an election year.
- ▸ Neither chamber's trade leadership supports unilateral reductions absent concessions.
- ▸ New Section 301 actions in two sectors would raise, not lower, the average.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if the trade-weighted average U.S. tariff rate on imports from China, as computed from USITC/USTR published schedules, is at least 2 percentage points lower on January 1, 2027 than on January 1, 2026.
- 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.
Discussion · 203 comments
LiveFading the crowd here. "Tariff toughness polls well with both parties' bases in an election year." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 17%.
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.
YES at 27% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 35%. Holding YES at 22 entry.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (6.5K forecasters).
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.
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.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 35%. Holding YES at 22 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.
YES at 27% 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.