Short Answer

A major magnitude 7.4 earthquake was reported near Iceland on September 27, 2026, directly satisfying the 7.1+ outcome. An earthquake of magnitude 6.9 or greater has therefore occurred worldwide before Oct 1, 2026, an outcome the market prices at 60.0%.

1. Market Behavior & Drivers

Market volatility was driven by a series of unconfirmed, real-time reports of major seismic events. The largest single move, a 70 percentage point spike on September 25, followed initial reports of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake near the Loyalty Islands. The market reacted again on September 27, spiking on news of a possible magnitude 7.4 event near Iceland. In both cases, prices moved on preliminary information that was later subject to change or re-evaluation.

This pattern of sharp reactions to uncertain data defines the period. The market's subsequent drop on September 28 was tied to a re-assessment of the Iceland event's magnitude. Separately, a steep 57 percentage point decline on September 26 reflects time decay, as the October 1 resolution date approached without a definitive, qualifying earthquake according to the USGS catalog.

While these events drove significant price action in some brackets, the specific contract shown in the chart data was illiquid. With a total volume of only 10 contracts, its price remained static. The reported volatility occurred in other, more active tiers of the same underlying market question.

Since last update (~25h): Headline 6.8+ edge flipped +34.6pp, model_led as model gained +39.6pp, market +5.0pp.
Model probability for 7.1+ outcome surged +48.3pp after a reported M7.4 earthquake.
6.9+ model probability increased +42.9pp, a model_led move with edge flipping.
Magnitude 7.1+ outcomes are supported by a reported 7.4 earthquake near Iceland.
Thresholds for 7.4+ magnitudes declined after the Iceland event's re-evaluation.

Current Context

Prediction markets imply specific earthquake probabilities by October 2026. As of September 27–28, 2026, a Kalshi-linked prediction market indicated an 85% chance of at least magnitude 6.8, 77.5% for at least 7.0, 39% for at least 7.4, 16% for at least 7.8, and 4% for at least 8.0 worldwide before October 1, 2026 ^[1]^[2]. The market ends September 30 and resolves October 1, based on the USGS earthquake catalog ^[1]^[3]. These market prices represent speculative probabilities, not physical forecasts ^[3]. The most likely market-implied range is at least M6.8 but below M7.8, with a 39% chance of M7.4+ and a 16% chance of M7.8+ ^[1]^[2].

Scientific consensus precludes deterministic earthquake magnitude prediction. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) states that neither it nor other scientists can predict major earthquakes, as a true prediction must specify date, time, location, and magnitude ^[4]^[5]^[6]. While scientists can provide probabilistic forecasts, these generally cover longer periods or aftershock sequences ^[4]^[5]. USGS aftershock forecasting estimates probabilities for M5+, M6+, and M7+ events using observed sequence behavior, but this does not yield a global short-term forecast for the largest earthquake ^[7]. Astrological or non-seismological claims of M6.9+ or M7.5+ events in late September 2026 lack support from scientific earthquake prediction evidence and should not be considered expert seismological forecasts ^[8]^[9].

No exact earthquake magnitude can be responsibly predicted by scientific means. Past events, such as a preliminary M7.4 near Chiapas, Mexico, on July 17, 2026, and an M7.1 in Kyushu, Japan, on July 28, 2026, do not establish what will occur before October 1 ^[10]^[11]^[12]. Furthermore, expert-curated sources from NOAA, CPC, and ECMWF relate to atmospheric hazards, ENSO, weather, climate, and ocean modeling, not validated global earthquake-magnitude prediction ^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]. CPC's September 2026 discussion forecasts strengthening El Niño, which is unrelated to earthquake forecasts ^[14].

Sources (16)

2. Price Chart

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome probability

Date

3. Significant Price Movements

Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.

Outcome: 7.4+

📉 September 28, 2026: 34.0pp drop

Price decreased from 38.0% to 4.0%

What happened: The primary driver for the 34.0 percentage point drop in the "7.4+" earthquake prediction market on September 28, 2026, was likely the market's re-evaluation of an unconfirmed seismic event. A Volcanodiscovery page reported a "possible magnitude-7.4 event" near Iceland on September 27, 2026, but explicitly labeled it unconfirmed and stated uncertainty regarding its occurrence ^[1]. The market, which resolves based on the official USGS earthquake catalog ^[2]^[3], likely adjusted downwards as participants processed that this reported event was not validated, significantly reducing the perceived probability of a qualifying earthquake before the October 1 deadline. No social media activity from key figures or viral narratives were identified as a driver of this movement.

📉 September 26, 2026: 71.0pp drop

Price decreased from 76.0% to 5.0%

What happened: The primary driver for the 71.0 percentage point drop in the "7.4+" outcome on September 26, 2026, was the rapidly approaching market resolution date of October 1, 2026, combined with the absence of a confirmed qualifying earthquake. As the deadline loomed with no scientifically predicted or confirmed M7.4+ event having occurred worldwide ^[4], the market rapidly repriced the dwindling probability of such an event happening within the remaining days. Social media activity, such as astrology-based predictions of strong earthquakes, would typically increase, rather than decrease, the price and lacks scientific credibility ^[5]. Therefore, social media was irrelevant to this specific price drop, which was fundamentally driven by time decay and the lack of a triggering event in an unpredictable market.

Outcome: 7.1+

📈 September 27, 2026: 48.0pp spike

Price increased from 12.0% to 60.0%

What happened: The market's 48.0 percentage point spike on September 27, 2026, was primarily driven by the reported occurrence of a Major mag. 7.4 earthquake near Fontur, Iceland, at 03:10 pm Reykjavik time on that date ^[1]. This significant seismic event directly satisfied the "7.1+" outcome for the market and coincided precisely with the recorded price movement. While an "Earthquake & Incident Watch" on Substack mentioned an asserted possibility of M7.5+ activity between September 17-29, 2026 ^[5], this astrological claim appeared as mostly noise or a minor contributing accelerant due to its lack of scientific credibility for earthquake prediction and limited documented reach ^[5]. Social media was not a primary driver of this specific spike; the direct reporting of a qualifying event was.

📉 September 24, 2026: 79.0pp drop

Price decreased from 99.0% to 20.0%

What happened: The 79.0 percentage point drop for the "7.1+" outcome on September 24, 2026, was primarily driven by a market correction based on existing seismic data. An earthquake of magnitude 7.4 had already occurred worldwide on July 17, 2026 ^[6]. This earlier, larger event likely invalidated the "7.1+" outcome, assuming it represented a specific maximum magnitude category (e.g., the largest quake will be exactly 7.1) rather than "7.1 or greater" (which would have already been true). The timing of the drop in late September suggests a delayed market re-evaluation, possibly triggered by a market-oriented summary reporting on 11 magnitude-7.0-or-greater earthquakes worldwide through late September ^[7]. Social media activity, consisting of unvalidated astrological forecasts for late September 2026 ^[5], was mostly noise and not a credible or primary driver for this specific market price movement.

Outcome: 6.8+

📈 September 25, 2026: 70.0pp spike

Price increased from 27.0% to 97.0%

What happened: The primary driver for the 70.0 percentage point spike on September 25, 2026, was the initial reporting of an earthquake near the Loyalty Islands/New Caledonia as magnitude 7.0 ^[8]. This news, quickly amplified across social media, coincided with the market movement ^[8]. Although the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and later reports listed the earthquake at magnitude 6.6, the initial, higher magnitude claim likely fueled a rapid social media narrative that impacted the prediction market ^[8]. Therefore, social media, driven by initial news reports, was a primary driver.

Sources (8)

4. Market Data

Contract Snapshot

This market resolves YES if an earthquake of a specific magnitude (e.g., 6.8 or higher, depending on the individual contract) occurs worldwide. It resolves NO if no earthquake of that specified magnitude or greater takes place. The qualifying event must occur before Thursday, and no other special settlement conditions are detailed in the provided content.

Market Discussion

Traders in this market are actively assessing the probability of various earthquake magnitudes occurring worldwide before October 1, 2026. The market indicates a 60% chance for a 6.9+ magnitude event, a probability that has recently seen a significant increase of 28 percentage points, reflecting a stronger "Yes" argument for this outcome. Conversely, the market's confidence in a 7.0+ magnitude earthquake has notably decreased by 10 points, settling at a 20% chance, suggesting a collective consensus against higher magnitude events.

5. Trust Index

Order book is critically thin.

Primary risk· Trade quality

How it adds up

Integrity80% of score86Strong

Trade quality20% of score21Avoid

Includes the cost to trade: a $100 order can't be filled here because the order book is too thin.

Trust score73Good

Weighted blend with hard caps — a critically weak safety pillar, or a severe trading anomaly, caps the total regardless of the rest. Full methodology · About the Trust Index

Trust profile

Integrity4 screens run · 6 don't apply

6. What does the historical data from the USGS earthquake catalog (2000-2025) reveal about the average annual frequency of global earthquakes exceeding magnitudes of 7.0 and 7.5?

Implied Likelihood M7.0+	About 54% before Oct 1, 2026 (prediction market snapshot) ^[1]^[2]
Implied Likelihood M7.5+	About 18% before Oct 1, 2026 (prediction market snapshot) ^[1]^[2]
Major Earthquake Event	Magnitude 8.8 near Kamchatka on July 29, 2025 ^[3]

The USGS earthquake catalog does not directly provide aggregated annual earthquake frequency. While the USGS catalog allows users to filter and browse worldwide M7+ earthquake listings by year, and search for specific events by date and magnitude, it does not offer pre-calculated average annual frequencies for global earthquakes exceeding magnitudes of 7.0 and 7.5 for the 2000-2025 period ^[4]^[5]^[6]. To obtain defensible annual averages from these sources, one would need to manually count the relevant catalog records for each year and magnitude threshold ^[4]^[5]^[6]. Separate tsunami event lists from the NWS/ITIC provide some historical earthquake data, but these are selective and do not substitute for the comprehensive global coverage of the USGS catalog ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10].

Prediction markets indicate a considerably higher implied likelihood for a magnitude 7.0+ earthquake. Before October 1, 2026, one snapshot showed an approximate 54% implied likelihood for a 7.0+ event compared to roughly 18% for a 7.5+ event, while another market reported prices of approximately 77.5 cents for M7.0+ and 28.5 cents for M7.5+ ^[1]^[2]. These figures reflect market prices and not probabilities directly derived from USGS data ^[1]^[2]. A significant seismic event, a magnitude 8.8 earthquake near Kamchatka, occurred on July 29, 2025, which the NWS/ITIC described as the largest globally since the 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and among the top ten largest since 1900 ^[3]. Additionally, NWS evidence shows a magnitude 7.1 earthquake occurred in Kyushu, Japan, on July 28, 2026, before the requested September 28, 2026 cutoff, illustrating that preliminary operational magnitudes can vary from later catalog values ^[11]^[12].

Sources (12)

7. What specific seismic precursors, such as foreshock sequences or seismic swarms, would lead agencies like the USGS or JMA to issue heightened alerts for a potential M7.5+ earthquake before October 2026?

Nankai-Trough 'Investigating' Trigger	M6.8+ earthquake ^[1]^[2]
Nankai-Trough 'Major Earthquake Attention' Trigger	Mw7.0+ earthquake ^[1]^[2]
Japan Trench-Kuril Post-Earthquake Caution Duration	About one week ^[3]^[4]

Earthquake agencies do not reliably predict precise major earthquake events. Agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) do not provide reliable predictions for major earthquakes, including M7.5+ events, needing specific date, time, location, and magnitude ^[5]^[6]. Instead, these agencies issue probabilistic forecasts or heightened regional advisories based on observed precursor patterns ^[6]^[1]^[2]^[7]. The most concerning, though still non-deterministic, signals for such alerts typically involve a combination of a moderate-to-large interface earthquake, continuing or migrating microearthquake swarms, and geodetic evidence of rapid or unusual aseismic or slow slip ^[8]^[9]. A scientifically relevant escalation pattern might include an M>5 event followed by activity within approximately 75 km and 10 days, which can significantly increase the probability of a larger earthquake in some subduction zone analyses; however, absolute probabilities often remain very low ^[8].

JMA utilizes specific regional thresholds for issuing heightened earthquake advisories. The JMA's Nankai Trough escalation thresholds are regional and operational, not intended as a worldwide M7.5+ prediction ^[1]^[2]. For example, an 'investigating' alert can be triggered by an M6.8+ earthquake within the monitoring area or significant strain changes ^[1]^[2]. A 'Major Earthquake Attention' advisory follows an evaluated Mw7.0+ earthquake in the monitoring area, and a 'Major Earthquake Warning' is issued after an evaluated Mw8.0+ plate-boundary earthquake ^[1]^[2]^[7]. For the Japan Trench–Kuril region, JMA issues a post-earthquake caution after an M7+ event, advising heightened caution for about one week ^[3]^[4]. These advisories are preparedness-based, reflecting an elevated relative probability rather than claiming an imminent M7.5+ earthquake ^[3]^[4]. Globally, the likelihood of an Mw8-class event occurring within seven days after an Mw7+ event is approximately once per several hundred cases ^[10].

Sources (10)

8. How do the world's most active seismic zones, the Pacific Ring of Fire and the Alpide Belt, compare in their documented M7.0+ earthquake activity during 2025 and 2026?

Largest documented M7.0+ earthquake (2025-2026)	Mw8.8 in Kamchatka (July 29, 2025) ^[1]
Dominant region for M7.0+ activity (2025-2026)	Pacific Ring of Fire ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]
Documented M7.0+ activity in Alpide Belt (2025-2026)	None documented ^[1]^[8]

A precise comparison of M7.0+ earthquake activity between the Pacific Ring of Fire and the Alpide Belt for 2025 and 2026 is currently not possible. This limitation arises from the absence of underlying USGS event lists, clear tectonic-belt classifications, and complete year-to-date 2026 earthquake counts in the provided research ^[9]^[10]^[11]. Despite these data constraints, available documentation indicates that the Pacific Ring of Fire clearly dominated documented M7.0+ activity within the partial 2025-2026 record ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7].

The Pacific Ring of Fire experienced several significant M7.0+ earthquakes during this period. Documented M7.0+ events in the Pacific Ring of Fire for 2025 include an Mw8.8 in Kamchatka on July 29, an M7.8 in Kamchatka on September 18, an M7.4 in Mindanao on October 10, an M7.4 in Kamchatka on July 20, and an M7.0 at Hubbard Glacier on December 6 ^[1]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[12]. For 2026, through September 28, documented examples from the region included an M7.6 in Tonga on March 24, preliminary M7.8/M8.2 values in Mindanao on June 7, an M7.4 in Chiapas on July 17, and an M7.1 in Kyushu on July 28 ^[2]^[6]^[7]. The largest earthquake documented before the October 1, 2026, resolution cutoff was the July 29, 2025, Kamchatka Mw8.8 event, which was described as the largest globally since the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku earthquake ^[1]^[13]^[6]^[7]. No retrieved source indicates a 2026 event exceeding the 2025 Mw8.8 ^[1]^[13]^[6]^[7].

Official sources lacked comprehensive, categorized earthquake data for analysis in the provided facts. While the USGS provides official worldwide M7+ listings for both years, the search excerpts did not contain the specific event rows or counts necessary for calculations ^[9]^[10]. Similarly, official NWS/ITIC material offers event-level tsunami documentation and links to annual event lists, but it lacks a distinct tectonic-belt classification or a complete worldwide M7.0+ catalog ^[1]^[8]. This means a precise belt-to-belt count would require independent classification of each earthquake event ^[1]^[8]. Importantly, no M7.0+ earthquake activity in the Alpide Belt during 2025 or 2026 is documented in the provided facts, supporting a qualitative comparison given the available information ^[1]^[8].

Sources (13)

9. Which global earthquake catalogs, such as the USGS ComCat and the ISC-GEM Catalogue, are considered the definitive sources for magnitude data, and what is their typical reporting latency for major events?

Primary Operational Reference	USGS ANSS Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog (ComCat) ^[1]^[2]
Market Resolution Authority	USGS-reported preferred magnitude ^[3]^[4]^[5]
Typical Tsunami Bulletin Latency	5-10 minutes for major earthquakes (NOAA/NWS tsunami centers) ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]

USGS ComCat and ISC-GEM serve distinct global earthquake catalog purposes. The USGS ANSS Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog (ComCat) functions as the primary operational global reference for earthquake source parameters, including magnitudes, integrating data from contributing seismic-network catalogs and real-time feeds ^[1]^[2]. In contrast, the ISC-GEM Catalogue is recognized as the principal authoritative research and reference catalog for homogeneous historical magnitudes, specifically tailored for seismic-hazard analysis and long-term comparability rather than real-time event detection ^[11]^[12]. For the specified prediction market, the resolution authority is specifically the USGS-reported preferred magnitude ^[3]^[4]^[5].

ComCat magnitudes are dynamic, involving preliminary reports and subsequent revisions. ComCat magnitudes are not permanently fixed; events may begin as automatic detections and undergo later review, with the USGS documenting its preferred magnitude as the best available estimate at the time of reporting ^[2]^[13]^[14]. While there is no universal exact latency for ComCat, it is characterized by near-real-time preliminary reporting followed by a review process and potential revision ^[1]^[2]^[14]. For major earthquakes that could generate tsunamis, NOAA/NWS tsunami-center preliminary parameters typically appear within approximately 5–10 minutes, though this can range from 2–3 minutes for nearby events to over 10 minutes for more challenging or remote occurrences ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]. It is important to note that these are preliminary operational estimates and do not represent finalized catalog magnitudes ^[9]^[10].

Market rules account for operational latency and the ISC-GEM's long-term focus. The prediction market rules acknowledge a typical operational latency of minutes to hours for major events and include provisions for delayed appearance and magnitude revision. This includes allowances for events to be posted up to three calendar days later, or a possible extension of up to one week after September 30 if an event has not yet appeared ^[3]^[4]^[5]. The ISC-GEM Catalogue, which recomputes locations and magnitudes, is designed for long-term consistency. Its current downloadable Version 12.1 is dated November 27, 2025, meaning it should not be considered a same-day reporting source for events occurring before October 1, 2026 ^[11]^[12]^[15].

Sources (15)

10. What is the scientific consensus from seismological institutions like the USGS and SCEC regarding the alleged connection between El Niño climate patterns and the likelihood of major earthquakes?

El Niño Earthquake Prediction	Not established as a reliable short-term predictor of major earthquakes by scientific consensus (USGS, SCEC) ^[1]^[2]
Primary Earthquake Factors	Tectonics, fault systems, plate boundaries, historical seismicity, and recurrence limits are primary factors for major earthquake likelihood (USGS) ^[2]^[3]
Hydrological Seismicity Influence	Localized hydrologic loading and groundwater changes can modulate seismicity regionally, but this is not a global El Niño-to-major-earthquake relationship ^[4]^[5]

Seismological institutions find no reliable El Niño-earthquake connection. The scientific consensus from prominent seismological institutions, including the USGS and SCEC, does not establish El Niño as a dependable short-term predictor of major earthquakes ^[1]^[2]. There is no strong institutional evidence supporting a global relationship between El Niño and major earthquakes ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]. While some localized hydrological effects have been observed, these do not indicate a global connection, and one specific case study explicitly found no direct causal link ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7].

Tectonic factors, not El Niño, explain earthquake likelihood and models. The USGS maintains a cautious approach to earthquake prediction, noting that forecasts are probabilistic, based on specific locations or faults, and that retrospective precursors are often equivocal ^[1]^[8]^[9]. The likelihood of major earthquakes is primarily explained by tectonic forces, fault systems, plate boundaries, historical seismicity, and recurrence limits, rather than the El Niño phase ^[2]. Modern seismic hazard models, such as a cited European model, forecast long-term earthquake occurrences using these established tectonic factors and rigorously tested statistical models, without identifying El Niño as a standard near-term predictor ^[3]. Furthermore, climate agencies like NOAA/CPC and ECMWF describe El Niño as a climate phenomenon, but their outlooks do not identify a validated relationship that forecasts major earthquakes, nor do they supply an earthquake forecast through October 1, 2026 ^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]. The available evidence does not support the deterministic prediction of a specific worldwide earthquake magnitude based on El Niño ^[2].

Sources (14)

11. What Could Change the Odds

Key Catalysts

No scientifically validated prediction can identify the exact date, location, or magnitude of an earthquake before October 1, 2026 ^[1]^[2]. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) states that neither it nor other scientists have successfully predicted a major earthquake; only probabilistic forecasts are feasible ^[1]^[2]. Long-term seismic hazard maps are unsuitable for near-term forecasts with a specific deadline like October 1, as they estimate average earthquake rates over years to decades, not several-day windows ^[1]^[3]. No authoritative source can predict the exact worldwide earthquake magnitude or timing between September 28 and September 30, 2026 ^[4]^[5]. Claims from astrological or non-scientific sources regarding possible M6.9+, M7.0+, or M7.5+ events in late September lack validated seismological methodology and should not be considered reliable catalysts ^[6]^[7]^[8].

The strongest identified near-term, event-specific signal is the M6.5 earthquake 165 km west of Nikolski, Alaska ^[9]. Its USGS aftershock forecast through September 24, 2026 gave a 9% chance of M6+ and a 1% chance of M7+ aftershocks, with a 3% chance the event was a foreshock to M6.5+ ^[9]. USGS aftershock forecasts are conditional on existing earthquakes and provide probabilities over various durations, but they are not global forecasts of the largest earthquake that will occur ^[10]^[9]. A September 21-27, 2026 prediction market priced a 71% chance of six or fewer worldwide M5.5+ earthquakes, but this was a count market, not a maximum magnitude forecast, with a resolution date of September 28, 2026 ^[11]. Tsunami guidance is issued after an earthquake occurs, based initially on preliminary parameters, and does not provide predictive evidence for an earthquake before October 1 ^[12]^[13]. The best defensible market-oriented conclusion as of September 28, 2026 is that a precise maximum magnitude cannot be forecast; a continuation of ordinary global seismicity and aftershock activity is the base case, with M7+ before October 1 remaining a low-probability tail scenario ^[1]^[2]^[3].

Key Dates & Catalysts

Expiration: October 08, 2026
Closes: October 01, 2026

Sources (13)

12. Keep Exploring

More Natural disasters markets See more natural disasters setups in the same theme. Browse all Climate and Weather markets Keep exploring adjacent climate and weather markets. Track this in the app Open the live app flow and keep following this market in real time.

Recent resolutions:

KXEARTHQUAKEM-26AUG-80: NO (Sep 01, 2026)
KXEARTHQUAKEM-26AUG-79: NO (Sep 01, 2026)
KXEARTHQUAKEM-26AUG-78: YES (Sep 01, 2026)
KXEARTHQUAKEM-26AUG-77: YES (Aug 17, 2026)
KXEARTHQUAKEM-26AUG-76: YES (Aug 17, 2026)

How strong of an earthquake will occur worldwide before Oct 1, 2026?

Short Answer

1. Market Behavior & Drivers

Current Context

2. Price Chart

Historical Price (Probability)

3. Significant Price Movements

Outcome: 7.4+

📉 September 28, 2026: 34.0pp drop

📉 September 26, 2026: 71.0pp drop

Outcome: 7.1+

📈 September 27, 2026: 48.0pp spike

📉 September 24, 2026: 79.0pp drop

Outcome: 6.8+

📈 September 25, 2026: 70.0pp spike

4. Market Data

Contract Snapshot

Market Discussion

5. Trust Index

6. What does the historical data from the USGS earthquake catalog (2000-2025) reveal about the average annual frequency of global earthquakes exceeding magnitudes of 7.0 and 7.5?

7. What specific seismic precursors, such as foreshock sequences or seismic swarms, would lead agencies like the USGS or JMA to issue heightened alerts for a potential M7.5+ earthquake before October 2026?

8. How do the world's most active seismic zones, the Pacific Ring of Fire and the Alpide Belt, compare in their documented M7.0+ earthquake activity during 2025 and 2026?

9. Which global earthquake catalogs, such as the USGS ComCat and the ISC-GEM Catalogue, are considered the definitive sources for magnitude data, and what is their typical reporting latency for major events?

10. What is the scientific consensus from seismological institutions like the USGS and SCEC regarding the alleged connection between El Niño climate patterns and the likelihood of major earthquakes?

11. What Could Change the Odds

Key Catalysts

Key Dates & Catalysts

13. Related News

Global Seismic Activity Spurs Sharp Rise in Bets on Major M7.1+ Earthquake

14. Historical Resolutions

Prediction Markets

Public Markets

Developers

Company

Short Answer

Current Context

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome: 7.4+

📉 September 28, 2026: 34.0pp drop

📉 September 26, 2026: 71.0pp drop

Outcome: 7.1+

📈 September 27, 2026: 48.0pp spike

📉 September 24, 2026: 79.0pp drop

Outcome: 6.8+

📈 September 25, 2026: 70.0pp spike

Contract Snapshot

Market Discussion

Key Catalysts

Key Dates & Catalysts

8.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan before 2030?

Will there be an at least 8.0 magnitude earthquake in California before 2028?

Will the world pass 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels before 2050?

Will there be an at least 8.0 magnitude earthquake in California before 2035?

Who will be the world's first trillionaire?

Which brands will advertise during the World Soccer Cup Final

Who will perform at the World Cup final halftime show?

Will the 2028 presidential election occur?

Global Seismic Activity Spurs Sharp Rise in Bets on Major M7.1+ Earthquake

Prediction Markets

Public Markets

Developers

Company