@JuJumper Aren't we travelling to the future all the time? If you want to speed it up, would cryonics qualify? What about relativistic time dilation?

Those do not count. It has to be time-machine-like and match general criteria for this market. (e.g. relativistic time dilation would count if it allowed to move something to the future usefully instead of it being an engineering problem)

So, it's a box for which someone pays to stay in to fast forward to some time in the future? Does hotel room qualify?

Just in case, I want to clarify that I'm not trolling. I genuinely think that it would be very difficult to define a "forward time machine" that would exclude things like cars, hotel rooms or cryonics tanks.

Inside a "forward time machine" must pass usefully less time than outside as measured by a physical clock, not just subjective perception. It seems to me your examples do not fit this definition.

Thank you for the clarification. So, the only realistic device that we know of that fits this description would be a spaceship that accelerates to relativistic velocity specifically to speed up the time for those inside.

@JuJumper commercial fusion is redundant

@Lemming elaborate please?

It was entered twice in this market under slightly different names

cold fusion is pretty different from "regular" fusion power

Bioprinting is kinda almost here. Dermatological use cases are much simpler than fully printed organs.

Would it be worth adding the "organ bioprinting" option? Not sure what the original asker intended

Sure

2050 is such a long time I can't imagine betting no on any of these. But some of them are already beyond the research project phase

You are welcome to add some less plausible technology!

Do I understand correctly that Lunar bases built primarily for research purposes will not count, since they will not be economically viable?

I would say Lunar research bases should count as long as they proved some viability. Not necessarily self sufficiency.

Research stations usually are payed for by the government, and are not commercially viable, are they? Is Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station viable?

The base should supports continuous human presence for at least one year by the end date. The habitats and other infrastructure are (at least somewhat) permanent instead of temporary. It should also include some commercial elements. Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station is not "viable" according to this definition: for that to be the case, it would need to be partially funded by regular tourist visits.

Gene editing and brain-computer interfaces exist right now and it is plausible that they will keep developing largely incrementally. What are the thresholds after which they will be resolved to YES?

Something like "approved by a regulatory body of several major countries as non-experimental treatment for 2 or more different conditions and proven to be somewhat cost effective".

Is it not the case for both of them?

For BCI there’s a multitude of devices from those used from locked-in syndrome to cochlear implants, not to mention consumer products.

For gene editing, don’t GMO count?

BCIs might be already here, I'll have to either resolve this YES or give stricter criteria, will figure it out.

GMOs are not gene editing therapy as far as I understand?

Ah, sorry, I missed the word “therapy” :)

Ok, for BCIs I mean something like this: the device interfaces with multiple specific neurons in the brain, allowing for complex and nuanced interactions (controlling external devices, cognitive enhancements, etc).