[misja111]

I read the article but failed to grasp what exactly the disaster is that America would be walking into.

Is the reliability of Polymarket predictions overhyped? Sure. Is there manipulation of Polymarket odds by some people? Most likely there is. But to say that this is a disaster that America is walking into is nothing else but clickbait.

[elar_verole]

I think you are underappreciating how "manipulation of poly market odds" can be destructive when you are betting on geopolitics. Here this means that every decision is now a conflict of interest, and that doing the unpredictable (politically, economically etc) has a financial incentive for potential insiders. Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

[bawolff]

On the other hand we have had stock markets forever. Sure you couldn't directly bet on e.g. if trump would invade iran, but you could indirectly bet on it by betting on things like the price of oil.

I dont think this is a new threat.

[eru]

How is that any different from existing financial markets?

[cjs_ac]

The disaster is the consequences of people treating the data generated by these prediction markets as revealing some sort of insight into future events, rather than just a silly game played by silly people.

[whimsicalism]

Markets are good at aggregating information. If there are so many obviously flawed predictions, I recommend you become one of the silly people as it sounds like you would quickly be rich.

[TurdF3rguson]

It's actually not a terrible idea to take some insights from prediction market data.

For example, you can expect the data to closely correlate to poll results for elections, because when it doesn't... people will notice and correct it.

[xpe]

With the exception of financial or economic analysis [1], relatively few journalists get paid to write with quantitative nuance, much less awareness of probability. These articles are rarely written to prioritize harm or predict the future. Instead, everything feels like an emergency. [2]

There is a large disconnect between the amount of combined effort and thinking that goes into prediction markets versus the glibness of which so many people write about them. It is almost as if people lose the plot — in capitalist countries, many financial flows are heavily informed by futures markets which share many of the same characteristics as prediction markets.

[1]: also: fraud investigations or other areas where rigor is expected

[2]: Even the better sources such as The Atlantic are somewhat advertising fueled, driven towards “engaging” content, prioritizing interesting ideas rather than practical relevance, dumbed down to maybe a high school reading level, hardly a trace of showing one’s methods. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any backing analysis in the form of a spreadsheet or (heaven forbid!) source code of a simulation. This is not meant to point fingers at writers or journalists; we just have to recognize the context they live in. If we want detailed and careful analysis, we need to find ways to build system systems that provide it. What we have now is a joke compared to what is possible.

[eru]

I guess journalists don't like markets?

[woah]

Journalists like writing about America walking into disasters