Prediction markets are ushering in a world in which news becomes about gambling

No, completely wrong. Deep markets are not more accurate.

People who are unfamiliar with how regulated gamblings works assume that the "market" is just lots of informed people rationally trading with each other. This is not how it works. Bookmakers post lines to a small group of syndicates up to a limit, they will often do this non-publicly, and this is how prices are set. They are not set by the "wisdom of crowds", they are set by people who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in predicting the outcome because bookmakers have an economic need for accurate lines.

When lines open to the public, there is often no significant movement after opening prices set by syndicates. That is because the public has no idea what the actual price should be, they are just uninformed noise traders clicking buttons randomly...that is the product too, the purpose of the product is entertainment not economic efficiency.

It is true that some lines are set incorrectly but the public is not able to benefit from this, because they do not have the information. I would guess that 95% of money made from gambling has been made by under 50 people. And, perhaps counter-intuitively, most of the time these people trading does not have an impact on price because they deliberately trade in a way that does not impact price. Again, the purpose is the same: they trade to make money, not produce economic efficiency.

The people who think prediction markets are useful in any way are people who never traded any markets and couldn't predict if the sun is going to come up tomorrow. If gamblers are noise traders, these people are noise speakers. These markets are completely pointless, gambling is economically pointless outside of the pleasure that people get from entertainment.

Bookies determine the odds and typically refuse to take bets from skilled bettors.

A market is open to all, with the odds influenced by all participants. In established betting markets such as for stocks, pros dedicate their careers and their organizations to improving the public estimates emerging from the market (though not for the sake of that improvement).

General prediction markets might turn out bad, but the above isn't an argument why, it's namecalling.

There's two forms of manipulation mentioned. One is changing the market to influence public perception, that does become harder as the market grows in size.

The other is accepting the bribe, sorry, taking the other side of the bet, and making something happen. That only becomes worse with scale. When you're in the position to accept a million dollar payout to cause the press conference to only last 64 minutes, or to invade a foreign country, suddenly you have a million new reasons to do so.

On any prediction market where a reasonably small group of humans decide the outcome, and there's enough money to matter, "betting no" is better understood as offering a fee to make it happen, conditioned on damages should someone accept your offer and fail to do so. "Betting yes" is better understood as agreeing to facilitate the outcome - or assisting in the price discovery mechanism that says facilitators are over charging.

> The irony of prediction markets is that they are supposed to be a more trustworthy way of gleaning the future than internet clickbait and half-baked punditry, but they risk shredding whatever shared trust we still have left. The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phenomenal luck that netted a roughly $400,000 payout. Or maybe someone with inside information was looking for easy money.

I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it. I thought the whole point was that yes, people with inside knowledge will bet large sums of money on things they expect to happen, and that's what makes the prediction useful. The market is meant to incentivize people who know things to act on them in a way that makes them known.

If I knew someone wanted me dead, of course I would want a prediction market on it, and if the odds suddenly shifted dramatically in favor of my death, I would use that as a trigger for whatever defense strategies I had in place. Someone has really good reason to bet a lot of money on the prospect that I'm about to die. It's probably someone who knows of an active plot in motion to try to kill me! The sooner I can find out about that, the better. I would much rather give them an incentive to make that known somewhat earlier than wait.

I feel like there must be some big piece of this puzzle that I'm missing that makes it so these cannot operate the way I imagine them, but I haven't heard anyone explaining what it is. Someone fill me in on what I'm missing here?

I don’t really understand the argument for prediction markets if you don’t have inside information. The reason they beat other forms of news is because insiders are incentivised to bet, that makes some sense. But surely an investor without insider knowledge will always make less money on a market where they’re trading against insiders than one where they’re not.