Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that the "misconception" is that it's actually slightly negative-sum, rather than exactly-zero sum? If so, great, I agree. It doesn't change my point at all; if anything it makes it stronger. I am not excluding anyone; I'm trying to explain why I think the result here is not particularly enlightening.
My understanding of your comments is influenced strongly by this statement: > Thus, any analysis that averages across market participants' P&L will conclude that futures trading is unprofitable[0], except for the market makers. This is true regardless of the savvy of market participants. By virtue of offering various services to market participants, savvy market operators can consistently generate profit. In the cont…
Nothing in the definition prevents some participants from being better players than others. As you noted above, some entities might also prefer to "buy" stability for their main operation instead of trying to minimize their spending on some of its inputs. Nevertheless, for every dollar made on futures, someone has lost (at least) that much. Except for the market-maker, the entire thing is a closed system. Thus, you'd expect the average return, across everyone trading the contract, to be zero, which is exactly what this paper shows.
The paper does show 47 people who turned a profit. Their analysis can't distinguish between rubes who haven't (yet) reverted to the mean and savvy traders with some kind of effective edge. It would be interesting to see what the loss distribution looks like.