Edit: also implicit in the 62 year estimate is constant volatility, but the same article mentions changes in the volatility of volatility... third order changes in something he was assuming was constant earlier.
The point is, all 3 faults/human errors shouldn't have happened according to statisticians/mathematicians.
Maybe some of us know that we're being watched, and simply defy any stupid egghead's function curves, for the sheer amusement of seeing disappointed faces.
Maybe there are sadistic people roaming free, and they feed on the souls of the damned.
How would that fit in with modern quantitative economics?
A single middle-class person working to make as contrary to prediction market choices as possible would, I think, have a not significant influence
Even if they optimized for the size of the influence as well as the strangeness.
I don't expect the total population of people doing that to have a significant impact on the market.
There isn't much reason to do it, and it probably costs money over time, leading the people who do that to have less money over time,and so for their doing that to have less and less of an impact over time.
Not all people act according to or within the rules of a market.
Not all human behavior can be scoped to a form of market activity.
What would the bald destruction of a market, or set of markets, represent to the context of such narrow minded economics?
You can't realistically take actions against a belligerent force that has an overwhelming capacity to watch your every action and imprison or execute you. You can't take actions against forces that exist outside a legal framework and the juridictions you are subject to.
Placing bets is not taking direct action. It means sitting on the sidelines, and hoping that legal mechanisms take their natural course in a civilized society.