Predicted Fed rate under each Fed Chair

The question behind the headline

The title invites a claim about what a particular chair would cause. The contracts actually price joint events: a named Senate confirmation and a rate path. Joint probability alone cannot establish a causal effect.

At the October 4, 2026 market snapshot, Kevin Warsh & Rate > 2.5% carried a 97.7% Yes price. Other open contracts included Kevin Warsh & Rate ≤ 2.5% at 2.35%. ^[1]

The condition that changes the answer

Combine the next Senate-confirmed Fed chair with whether the target-range lower bound reaches 2.5% or less. Acting or recess appointments without confirmation do not qualify; a rate touch before nomination can count. ^[1]

Confirmation cutoff: December 31, 2026, 11:59 p.m. ET. The embedded rate leg specifies 12:59 p.m. ET that day; the umbrella text also uses 11:59 p.m., a timing discrepancy readers should check in the original rules. ^[1]

Evidence for and against the leading outcome

The selected pair needs both the confirmation result and the rate condition, rather than favorable evidence for just one leg.

A different appointee or a different rate path defeats the joint outcome; correlation does not show the chair caused the rate.

The next useful checks are senate confirmation record; lower bound rather than upper bound; conflicting final-day times in the contract. The linked primary references make the process and named data source inspectable. ^[2][3]

A closer look at the market

The leading listed option was 95.35 percentage points above the next quoted option. That difference measures market pricing, not a vote margin or a measured lead in real-world evidence. A price above 50% still leaves room for another outcome; it is not a guarantee or an independently validated forecast.

The event had approximately $161,530 in total traded volume at observation. That is a record of turnover across this event, not a count of distinct people, a search-volume estimate or proof that every child contract is easy to trade. The analytical quote is fixed to the timestamp shown here; later live prices can differ. ^[1]

The useful conclusion is conditional: the leading option needs to satisfy the whole outcome definition, not just one favorable part of the story.