Reconciliation bills nearly always change significantly from the House to the Senate versions. That's how the reconciliation process works! I have no shares in this market (and never did), but this should resolve YES.

Still unhappy with the wording on this market, especially given how much has meaningfully changed in the past two days now of vote-a-rama. They're just very different bills, and the house will need to debate what was passed in the Senate

@Pedro What if the bill "passes" but the bill has been so severely modified that the bill is unrecognizable from the original bill that was passed in the House?

@Balasar good question. this would be good to clarify / define. My rough interpretation was that if it does not pass with the text as linked in the description which is the text "passed in the house on 5/22/25", this question resolves "no". But this is slightly unclear.

Something called the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" might get passed with changes. That version might not be the one that passed on 5/22/25 though.

@Pedro is it possible could clarify if my reading matches your intent. The market has swung a lot, but the resolution will come down to how you interpret.

Thank you all for raising this issue and sharing your thoughts. I genuinely apologize for the ambiguity caused by my initial wording. My intent was to create a market about whether the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R.1), referenced explicitly via the congress.gov link and clearly named in the market title, would pass the Senate—amendments notwithstanding—as is standard legislative process. I referenced “passed in the House on 5/22/2025” simply to uniquely identify the bill, not to restrict the resolution to that exact original version or wording.

In legislative practice, amendments are common, and bills routinely undergo modifications. Since my description and title consistently referred to the general bill name without explicitly mentioning “original text” or “exact wording,” I intended the broader interpretation that includes amendments.

However, recognizing that some traders reasonably understood the wording differently, I’m open to resolving this market as N/A if there’s strong consensus or discomfort with my original intent. I sincerely regret any confusion and am committed to maintaining fairness and clarity. Please share any further thoughts, and thank you again for your patience and understanding.

@Pedro Even though I traded NO on the notion that the bill would pass but be unrecognizable from the House bill (which is probably the case) I think I will not be upset if you resolve according to whether the bill in its current state passes, primarily because I am interested in knowing a probability attached to this.

@Pedro the version of the bill that is on track to pass the Senate is significantly different, including major changes to the benchmarks for health care and food assistance, placing embargos and tariffs on Chinese technology that didn't exist in the house bill, has a higher impact on the deficit, has had parts removed or rewritten with respect to the Byrd rule, ends a major EV incentive, a major solar incentive, increases the debt ceiling by an extra 25%, and caps the no tax on tips

@Soaffine I had bet down this market on the basis that there are meaningfully new taxes, means tests, caps, and changes to codes that appear in this bill which will require and result in debate in the House

@Pedro thanks for clarifying. I'm not familiar enough with the legislative process or the jargon to really know what is typical wording, but your explanation seems like it could be reasonable.

Apologies to others if me adding a comment misled others.