Put the same energy into championing regulation then. Don't walk away from a mess you claim to have helped create. (which the OP may indeed be doing, but it isn't clear they are, hence the chiding)

People always assume that others will use something with good intentions, but in practice, malice tends to take root before goodwill does.

The author was instrumental in a colleague ruining their life through a gambling addiction. Then they helped make the case for prediction markets, which also went wrong.

Their track record is not great, and I don't think they fully realise that the issue is them: the principles and axioms they rely on don't lead to good results.

> I don’t claim to know the exact right policy answer for America.

Perhaps start by reversing your positions, and throwing support behind those trying to undo the damage you caused.

> And I know exactly what that costs: Before I was an economist, I was a teenager working for bookies on Australian racetracks. I once took five dollars from a coworker who “didn’t bet” and put it on number one in the next race. Six months later he was betting thousands a race and stealing from his own family. Compulsive gambling destroys lives — and the families it wrecks have no lobbyists.

> I don’t claim to know the exact right policy answer for America. But I know we never even had a grown-up debate.

If you've seen the destruction caused by something and can't figure it out, maybe you have a problem?

And let's be honest: the idea of "debating" things that are obvious is often one of the primary ways by which indefensible things are legitimized.

>Trump Media may soon sell early access to the president’s Truth Social posts. Think about what this means. This is how the president announces war; every embassy on earth has to maintain a Truth Social account just to stay informed of American policy.

He is already so beyond the pale this doesnt even move the needle.