Markets
Will a commercially relevant quantum computer be demonstrated by IBM, INFQ, or QBTS by December 31, 2026?
Yes0%No0%
Loading...
About this market
This market resolves to Yes if IBM, INFQ, or QBTS publicly demonstrates a quantum computer that is deemed commercially relevant by December 31, 2026, as per Trump's executive orders aiming for such a technological achievement by 2028. The determination of 'commercially relevant' will be based on a consensus of leading tech media reports and expert opinions.
Rules
- Market closes at 12/31/2026.
- Logic weighted resolution applies.
I get why people are hyped about quantum computers, but honestly, we're still a ways off. IBM's been making strides but they said a few years ago that commercial relevance was just around the corner, and look where we are now. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see anything concrete from them by the end of 2026. Seems risky to bet high rn.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current state of quantum computing and IBM's previous claims about commercial relevance, which supports a high Fact Check score. It logically critiques the hype surrounding quantum computers without falling into major logical fallacies. The relevance to the market question is strong, as it discusses the likelihood of a commercially relevant quantum computer being demonstrated by the specified companies by the deadline. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, with a slight emphasis on relevance due to the direct connection to the market question.
The spreads on this market seem overly optimistic given the current state of quantum computing. Even with recent advancements, a commercially relevant quantum computer by the end of 2026 still feels like a stretch.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects skepticism about the market's optimism regarding quantum computing advancements, which aligns with current discussions in the field. It is logically sound and directly relevant to the market question, with no significant fallacies present. The weights emphasize relevance and logical soundness, as the comment is based on a reasoned analysis of the market's expectations versus technological realities.
this market is way too optimistic about the timeline, the tech hurdles for practical quantum computing are still massive. plus, just because they say they're close doesn't mean they are. risk/reward is totally off here.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects skepticism about the timeline for practical quantum computing, which is supported by the ongoing challenges in the field. It avoids logical fallacies and remains relevant to the market question, though it could benefit from more specific evidence regarding the tech hurdles mentioned. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the nature of the claims made.
tbh, i think it's a bit too optimistic to expect a commercially relevant quantum computer by end of 2026. IBM and the others are making progress but there's still a ton of hurdles to clear, like error rates and scalability. i'm betting against this, like 40% chance at best. but i guess people are hyped about the tech, so prices are climbing.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current state of quantum computing, acknowledging both progress and significant challenges, which supports a high Fact Check score. It logically analyzes the market sentiment and its impact on prices, showing no fallacies. The weights emphasize relevance and logical reasoning, as the comment is a balanced assessment of the market question. Overall, it provides a reasoned perspective without excessive emotional appeal.
I think this market is way overpriced. We've seen slow progress in quantum computing, and I doubt any of these companies will show something commercially viable by the end of this year. There are still too many technical hurdles to overcome.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current state of quantum computing, noting the slow progress and technical hurdles, which aligns with the market question. It is free from logical fallacies and directly addresses the market's potential outcome. The weights emphasize relevance and logical reasoning, as the comment is grounded in a reasoned skepticism about the market's valuation rather than emotional hype.
I think it's unlikely we'll see a commercially relevant quantum computer from these companies by the end of 2026; while they are making progress, the technology still seems too far from practical applications.
Rationale:The comment presents a reasonable assessment of the current state of quantum computing technology, indicating that while progress is being made, it may not be sufficient for commercial relevance by the specified date. The scores reflect a strong logical structure with no fallacies, and the relevance to the market question is high. The weights prioritize fact-checking slightly lower due to the general nature of the claim rather than specific data points.
the sentiment around this is overly optimistic. IBM and QBTS have made claims before but haven't delivered commercial viability yet. INFQ might have a slight edge, but the uncertainty is huge. not sure I’d bet on this one.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the sentiment and uncertainty surrounding the market, particularly regarding IBM and QBTS's past claims. It presents a logical perspective without fallacies, directly addressing the market question. The weights emphasize relevance and logical reasoning, as the comment is grounded in a critical analysis of the situation rather than specific data points.
I think the odds are a bit too high on this market. IBM has made progress, but they're still years away from a commercially viable device, let alone the others. I'd bet on no here.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current state of IBM's quantum computing progress, suggesting a reasonable skepticism about the timeline for a commercially viable device. It is logically sound and directly addresses the market question, though it could benefit from more specific evidence to support the claim about the timeline. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the comment's analytical nature.
The current odds are too optimistic. Given the complexity of quantum computing and IBM's history of setbacks, I wouldn't bet on this happening by the end of the year.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects skepticism about the current odds and acknowledges the complexity of quantum computing, which is a relevant factor in the market question. While it does not provide specific evidence for IBM's setbacks, it is logically sound and free from major fallacies. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical reasoning, with some emphasis on factual accuracy given the context of the market.
The odds seem too high for this timeline. IBM and INFQ have made progress, but commercial relevance might still be years away. I wouldn’t bet on this before 2028.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current state of progress by IBM and INFQ, suggesting that while advancements have been made, commercial relevance may still be distant. It is logically sound and directly addresses the market question, though it leans slightly on emotional skepticism regarding the timeline. The weights reflect a balanced focus on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the speculative nature of the comment.