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.

> Trump Media may soon sell early access to the president’s Truth Social posts.

Think about whether the spirit of the domestic/foreign emoluments clause would be okay with this. I'm sure some will argue there's enough layers of BS in this scheme that it's totally fine.

Ethics and judgement aside, I think startup founders can learn a lot from this administration as to how "successful" people twist things in their favor. The industry is full of it.

I'll admit that I still see some value in prediction markets in theory, but in practice the way they were implemented seems to have caused an order of magnitude more harm.

In retrospect their misuse as a loophole for sports gambling was an obvious outcome. Seems like every promising new technology inevitably is used for evil. Cryptocurrency is mostly used for criminals. Social media displaced more meaningful forms of connection. We're already starting to see this with AI (psychosis, slop, assisting bad actors) but I'm afraid it will get much worse.

The only true winners in those prediction markets are the insider whales that already know what will happen.

Anyone who is not an insider is a loser.

My position is that prediction markets are bad and harmful but so are all mainstream stock markets. They're all prediction markets. People collaborate to pump up the value of specific assets or contracts, leading to undesirable outcomes.

It would be dishonest to ban prediction markets without banning stock markets.

The best which can be done, under the current system, is to punish unfair information asymmetries, which is practically impossible to do reliably... And even if we could find a way to punish it reliably; what would happen is that most rich people would end up in jail. Information asymmetry is almost never fair and it's how people make big money these days.

I think the best solution is to create conditions to allow people to earn big money in other ways; ways which create value. If there were other ways to make big money besides unfair information asymmetry, then skilled people would find it easier to do that instead...

Unfortunately, skill/talent does not allow you to gain an information advantage; only social connections do. So the current system is really bad in terms of wasting specialized skills/talents.

I don't like prediction markets, but I think a lot of people in this thread are assuming that gambling vs. not is clear cut.

Insurance was illegal at different times in history because it was considered gambling. Ditto for commodity trading.

Even you look at the structure of a futures contact, the basics look really similar to a bet that can be traded with someone else.

The main differences are the regulatory environment, and the intention the actors in the market have.

Commodities, options, and futures are all legitimately used to hedge against future outcomes. The "gamble" (placing money on a future outcome) is a mechanism for the main goal: protection against instability.

When you look at stocks and - in particular - derivatives, it starts to look a lot closer to how gambling is structured. I'm pro stock market, but that doesn't mean I won't admit that the line between it and gambling is pretty hard to draw. It's a lot more grey than people give credit for