Science Markets
Markets / Chemistry / Origins of life

RNA alone can sustain its own replication.

Can RNA keep making the catalysts it needs to copy itself through ten rounds of dilution, without protein enzymes? Copying a fragment once would not meet the rule.

Open
Trading paused. You can read the definition and evidence, but new trading is not available here. Pool links or recorded prices do not establish live access.

Price history

No recorded prices yet. Trading prices appear once pools are live.

The single AI dot opens that round's saved record.

How to read this chart

Each dot is one recorded reading, thinned to hourly for readability; the underlying samples are every few minutes. The line between two dots is not a measurement. How the AI estimate is made.

Weekly AI estimate

28% This week · Nov 10, 2026 09:23 PM EST

The average of three models reading the same evidence. It is an estimate, not proof the hypothesis holds, and it does not set the pool price.

Range
2–55%
Verdict
Undecided

The panel's confident binary this round Undecided the models did not all agree

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
OpenAI 55% Anthropic 2% xAI 28% Average 28%
Market definition · YES, NO and evidence rules

This is the frozen contract wording. Read the YES and NO tests, the evidence requirements and the undecided cases before taking a position.

Canonical title

RNA alone can sustain full replication through serial dilution.

Exact hypothesis · technical wording

An RNA-catalysed system can copy every RNA catalyst needed for its own replication from activated RNA substrates of length <= 3 nucleotides, without protein enzymes, DNA templates or supplied longer sequence-specific fragments. In each of ten consecutive transfers, <= 10% of the prior reaction is retained and the concentration of full-length catalytically active replicase recovers to at least its pre-transfer value. Environmental temperature/pH cycles and a fixed RNA seed at the first transfer are allowed. Transfer count and dilution are operational conventions; this tests a necessary capability of RNA-world models, not Earth's historical origin of life.

Each round reads the evidence that was public at a stated cutoff. Later evidence goes into a later round; the market itself has no expiry date.

How the evidence cutoff is fixed

A round only counts evidence published before its own cutoff time, and the round's number is that timestamp. So a round cannot borrow a later cutoff, and an earlier round's judgment cannot be reused for a later one. The hypothesis wording, the resolution criteria and the methodology identifier were hashed into the market account at creation, which is what stops any of them being edited afterwards.

Resolution criteria

YES: Two independent laboratories satisfy all ten transfers with sequence-resolved product accounting, catalytic activity and isotope or equivalent tracing demonstrating newly synthesized full-length replicase rather than seed persistence or contamination. NO: A rigorous chemical impossibility result applying to the entire specified substrate/catalyst class, supported by independently verified physical constraints. Failure of one engineered ribozyme or one reaction recipe is not universal disproof; otherwise remain UNDECIDED. Reference sources: QT45 polymerase ribozyme (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2760); RNA replication with freeze–thaw cycles (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-025-01830-y). Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.

The definition does not change when an AI estimate changes. Read the listing policy and this market's settlement status.

How each model argued

Three models read the same evidence and did not fully agree. Their average is 0.28.

This round ran under methodology panel-v9. Short excerpts are below; the round 5 page keeps the full answers, sources and raw responses. The current methodology and example requests do not reconstruct this historical round's exact request.

OpenAI UNDECIDED 0.55

openai/gpt-6.1-sol

I interpret this as a claim of chemical capability, not that qualifying replication has already been demonstrated. Primary results support important components, but QT45 self-synthesis required a supplied hexamer and achieved approximately…

Would change this view: Independent demonstrations of ten qualifying transfers with newly synthesized active replicase would strongly increase support; verified class-wide chemical constraints would decrease it.

Full explanation from OpenAI→
Anthropic UNDECIDED 0.02

anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5

No evidence shows a ten-transfer, two-laboratory demonstration of replicase self-renewal from triplet substrates. QT45 copies itself with about 0.2% yield over 72 days. The freeze–thaw work replicates only a 29-nt fragment of the ribozyme…

Would change this view: Two independent peer-reviewed labs reporting ten isotope-traced transfers with full-length replicase recovery would move this to YES. A rigorous impossibility proof for the whole substrate/catalyst class would move it to NO.

Full explanation from Anthropic→
xAI UNDECIDED 0.28

x-ai/grok-4.7

Neither named primary result meets the ten-transfer, ≤10% retention, and concentration-recovery test. QT45 copies itself from trinucleotide substrates at ~0.2% yield in separate reactions; the freeze–thaw study shows limited exponential…

Would change this view: A peer-reviewed dual-lab ten-transfer result with isotope-traced full-length active replicase recovery would move this to YES.

Full explanation from xAI→

What moved the number

—
Oct 16

This is a new contract, not a migrated position or a continuation of old forecast history. The initial 0.50 is an initialization convention, not an AI forecast or an assessed scientific probability. Reference links are background sources,…

Nov 10
0.25 0.28 +3.7

OpenAI estimated 0.55. I interpret this as a claim of chemical capability, not that qualifying replication has already been demonstrated. Primary results support important components, but QT45 self-synthesis required a supplied hexamer…

This round's saved score, answers and sources →
Nov 9
0.25 0.25 0.0 no model output

Live panel did not return all three estimates (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI failed or gave an unusable answer). A round is only live when all three are valid, so this round is a placeholder at the previous score rather than an average of two.

This round's saved score, answers and sources →
Oct 19

OpenAI estimated 0.45. I interpret “can” as chemical feasibility under the specified conditions, not merely partial copying. Primary results support important components, but QT45 self-synthesis required a prohibited hexamer and achieved…

This round's saved score, answers and sources →
—
Oct 19

AI estimate scheduled: an independent three-model panel reads the published definition and evidence every week. New positions are still closed for this market, so the estimate is here to read, not to trade against.

The evidence packet · 5 entries

What the panel was shown when this round ran. A row with no source link is a description only, and the panel is told so.

QT45 polymerase ribozyme

Context

Copies itself and its complement in separate low-yield reactions; does not establish this serial-transfer criterion.

Source link

RNA replication with freeze–thaw cycles

Context

Demonstrates exponential replication including a ribozyme fragment, not automatically complete replicase renewal.

Source link

Required positive observation

Supporting

Two independent laboratories satisfy all ten transfers with sequence-resolved product accounting, catalytic activity and isotope or equivalent tracing demonstrating newly synthesized full-length replicase rather than seed persistence or contamination.

Description only · no source link recorded

Required contrary observation

Contrary

A rigorous chemical impossibility result applying to the entire specified substrate/catalyst class, supported by independently verified physical constraints. Failure of one engineered ribozyme or one reaction recipe is not universal disproof; otherwise remain UNDECIDED.

Description only · no source link recorded

Eligibility and unresolved outcomes

Method

Evidence policy: use public primary research with methods and uncertainty, plus the named reference sources below. A preprint can inform the estimate but cannot alone meet a terminal criterion; require a peer-reviewed primary result and an independent reproduction using non-overlapping observations or independently prepared samples, unless this is a mathematical proof or the specific criterion instead requires independently implemented calculations. Report data provenance, exclusions, calibration, statistical model and systematic uncertainty. Independence means different data acquisition, not two papers reanalysing the same sample. For a quantitative terminal test, both independent results must meet the stated threshold; disagreement or an interval crossing the boundary means UNDECIDED. Use the final corrected version public at the signed round's evidence cutoff (UTC); exclude later evidence until a later eligible round. Every report in a terminal round must use the same cutoff, covered by the verified signed context and enforced by the configured terminal protocol; a different cutoff requires a new eligible round, never reinterpretation of a signed report or mutation of an immutable binding. This market has no calendar expiry. Retracted findings cannot supply a terminal result. If a named source disappears, use its DOI/publisher or an archived identical version, then an equivalent primary publication applying these unchanged definitions; if none is accessible, remain UNDECIDED, never substitute a different test. Missing data, failed replication, a null search outside the specified domain, or an untested alternative is not automatically NO. These are instructions for evidence assessment, not an automatic truth oracle: scientific interpretation and systematic-error judgment remain. Settlement follows the configured platform mode: terminal mode requires one valid round with all three frozen models returning the same explicit YES or NO and criterion_met=true; any UNDECIDED, failure or disagreement leaves it unresolved. Legacy proposal/challenge mode requires its recorded review process. Model agreement does not prove scientific truth. Invalidity is not NO and this text does not authorize a refund or cancellation: only a cancellation rule disclosed before exposure, if the configured contract supports it, can apply. Otherwise pause new entries and preserve holders' existing rights. Never reinterpret terms after listing.

Description only · no source link recorded

Past estimates

Every weekly estimate, newest first
DateEstimateRange
Nov 10, 2026 09:23 PM EST 28% 2–55%
Nov 09, 2026 09:38 AM EST 25% no live reading
Nov 02, 2026 09:38 AM EST 25% no live reading
Oct 26, 2026 10:38 AM EDT 25% no live reading
Oct 19, 2026 07:08 PM EDT 25% 1–45%

Discussion

Start a thread

No threads yet. Argue about the evidence, the panel, or whether the hypothesis is worded fairly.

Anyone can join the discussion. Sign in with a wallet to keep your threads together.