Yep, far worse than cryptocurrency
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/pr...
1. As pointed out in the comments, you can inflate your prediction success rate by predicting things that are 100% to happen. There are plenty of 99.9% bets on Polymarket with degens betting on some 0.01% lottery event trying to strike a jackpot against the odds, and those will inflate the perceived accuracy.
2. All you're really doing is paying insiders to leak information a few hours ahead of time. Insofar as Polymarket is unusually accurate on things that aren't ~100% to happen, it's likely because in the 12-hour-window that post measures is when all of the insiders place their last-minute bets telling you what will happen. This is extremely bad for society. It's wealth redistribution from stupid people to unethical people[1], and it could completely compromise national security when eg. an insider tells you 12 hours ahead of time that the US is about to launch an invasion of Venezuela. There is no societal benefit to this.
[1] Even if you have no sympathy for idiots who bet their life savings on markets without having insider information, gambling addiction has extremely detrimental effects on society and directly results in increased crime rates, divorce rates, etc. as people lose all of their money and do bad things in desperation, so it is a problem that becomes everyone else's problem.
https://calibration.city/introduction
https://manifold.markets/calibration
2. That is just obviously not all these markets are doing. They're aligning incentives and aggregating information in the same way other markets do.
As the comments on that article rightfully point out, restricting the data analysed to 12 hours before the resolution feels like cherry picking.
The implication seems to be "12 hours before the resolution things are obvious anyway". But if that were the case, then I could pick some wager that is obviously true but has, for example, 70% chance, and putting my money on that. If it was true that "12 hours before the resolution it's obvious what the result is", everything would be in 0% or 100% buckets. I believe getting event with 30% confidence right exactly 30% times is impressive no matter if that's 12h or 120h before.
Disclaimer: I don't know much about prediction markets, just what I understood from the blog post.
If you’re in that telegram channel, though, I imagine the threats on your life are a lot more credible than the ones discussed in TFA.
Kalshi is worse in a sense that it also accepts fiat payments.
"Coincidentally", they also gave a bullshit advisory position to Trump Jr. and accepted an investment from his firm (1789 Capital), which I'm sure had nothing to do with them getting that licence. But to be "fair and balanced" to Polymarket, Trump Jr. is also Kalshi's "strategic advisor", so there's that!
That's not how I read GP; "Why would you want to do an end-run around the government when using currency?" is different to, well, whatever it is you are saying (I'm not sure I can decipher it well enough - seems to be "using currency is bad when it goes against laws", but I think that's fine too, so not really sure what your message is - maybe you can clarify?)
Using legal tender is not a problem. Using barter (which is what using crypocurrencies boils down to) is also not a problem. Lack of reporting your income to the tax authorities is a problem. Most bartering systems are too small to warrant the attention of tax authorities, but cryptocurrencies facilitate bartering at scale, which does warrant interest.
Just because you might agree with the actions and behaviour of your current government enough, that you don't mind them being able to have a hand in your currency, doesn't mean that can't change.
E.g. a Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks?
But yes, something used to work around bad governments, will also be used against good governments. Every legit tool can be also abused.
Cryptocurrency (although I hate it) you don't have to participate, so no harm done.
Prediction Markets you don't have to participate, so no harm done.
With AI, you're participating whether you like it or not. Layoffs, Job displacement, etc. There is no opt out here.
Once you're replaced with AI, that is it.
At least with cryptocurrency and prediction markets you can make money but it's obviously risky.
Ultimately with AI it would just push people to cryptocurrencies and prediction markets.
> Prediction Markets you don't have to participate, so no harm done.
Harm: https://www.npr.org/2025/11/13/nx-s1-5605561/college-athlete...
Harm: https://militarnyi.com/en/news/in-november-an-isw-analyst-ma...
Harm: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/05/prediction-markets-merkley-b...
What you're showing me is a death threat, which has existed for time in humans.
Betting markets of all kinds have existed for a long time and haven't been banned.
Banning on particular betting market prediction markets altogether and pushing it underground would make things far worse.
Given that the article is discussing some of the bad behavior typically associated with dark markets (death threats, extortion, fixing) happening in the light, what makes you think that banning them would make things worse?
What you're showing me is a [war crime], which has existed for time in humans.
[Wars] of all kinds have existed for a long time and haven't been banned.
Banning on [particular tactics in war] altogether and pushing it underground would make things far worse.
There is a difference.
Where is the particular and specific assassination market that says:
"Date on which this journalist will die"?
Possibly because you're too emotional and raging everywhere and not stopping to think what happens when you think the answer to everything is a complete ban.
I'm not the one apologising for my position, you're not completely rational at all since you don't think about the second order effects.
What if there's a prediction market on your life? Would you say you're still "not participating, so no harm done" ?
"Date on which this journalist will die"?
Similar with war in general: the moment the decision makers can earn $$$ by betting on something unlikely and then doing it, we have a problem...
Did you read the article? It is about a journalist getting death threats from members of a prediction market.