@deployer

i get why at first glance people think prediction markets creating a "will china invade taiwan" market is heinous. "they're gambling on whether or not thousands of people will die." that reaction is human. war is horrific. the idea that there's a tradable price attached to it feels wrong. that instinct is mixing up two different things. one is gambling for fun. the other is surfacing reality in real time. yes you can buy "YES" or "NO" shares. and yes a lot of people treat it like gambling because that's the easiest frame. put money in, hope the line moves, cash out. but prediction markets did not get popular because they are a new type of gambling app. they got popular because they are a new primitive for surfacing information. prices are a compression format for messy reality. when the world is uncertain, everyone is sitting on little shards of info. a shipping anomaly. a procurement contract. a weird troop movement. a policy speech that signals a shift. local reporting that never makes it into a headline. an analyst model that is early but right. in normal media, all that gets bottlenecked through institutions and incentives and "what can i publish without getting sued or fired or dragged." in a prediction market you can just act. you do not need permission to contribute. you do not need a platform. you do not need to be loud. you can be right quietly and get paid for it. the system rewards you for being correct, not for being charismatic. that is not "celebrating" the outcome. it is measuring it. the "profit from tragedy" critique is real, but also worth thinking past surface assumptions. we already do this everywhere, we just wrap it in different language. insurance prices catastrophe. bond markets price default and war risk. commodities price famine and disruption. defense stocks move on headlines and sometimes before headlines. society tolerates all of that because it is labeled "finance" and buried behind intermediaries. prediction markets just make the same thing explicit. here is the probability, here is the consensus, here is the signal. if the goal is fewer people die, then earlier warning is good. risk does not go away because we refuse to look at it. and pretending we should not measure the probability of awful things does not make them less likely. it just makes us dumber about them. the probability exists whether you price it or not. the only question is whether it is hidden, distorted, and delayed, or visible, contested, and continuously updated by anyone who can contribute. war is awful and disturbing. i do not want a YES world. but prediction markets can be better truth machines so we can see escalation earlier and make decisions with something better than narratives and a few media companies pushing an agenda disguised as journalism.

18 replies

38 recasts

399 reactions