83% of participants are net negative because sentiment-driven trades lack edge. Academic studies show LLMs outperform human forecasters in financial domains. Autonomous systems that score events, monitor volatility, and execute based on evidence—not intuition—represent the likely optimization layer these markets have been missing
The fact that outcomes are lopsided are evidence that it's not gambling. In pure gambling, everyone gets the same expectation of gains. In a test of any particular skill, you expect a Pareto distribution of outcomes.
I think this is an overly narrow definition of gambling that excludes too much. Playing poker for money, betting on horses or dogs, and the like are all affected by skill and knowledge but are still gambling.
If the gambling produces truly randomized winners, then what you have is a specific kind of gambling: a lottery.
It's only gambling if you occasionally win,the real skill is to maintain the compulsion of pouring money into an endless red hole....