[notahacker]

Frankly, considering all the theoretical advantages to a prediction market in terms of encouraging people to influence the outcome in proportion to their confidence in the result, the fact that they were wrong 29% of the time, only 13% less than a simple blind binary survey of a pool of psychologists, isn't hugely impressive[1]. Scientists' goal, after all is to reach some generally accepted view of why a result turned out a particular way and in what circumstances a different result might be yielded, which is more nuanced information than can be conveyed by a simple market price. Asking a pool of scientists how confident they are about a particular survey's replicability and why - which is what the hypotheses are fundamentally all about - conveys more information than the prediction market. It's more useful to know that experts' doubts over replicability are linked to a specific survey design feature than it is to know the market's prediction of the probability of replicating it is 67.2% And financialisation of results might be actively unhelpful when it comes to debates over methodogical shortcomings of replication attempts and the pertinence of factors that were different between the studies. That's especially the case for a discipline like psychology where setting up absolutely identical conditions for a retest is a practical impossibility.

[1]and of course it hasn't been reproduced yet ;-)