[doginasuit]

The often-repeated "wisdom of the crowds" justification is misapplied to online betting markets. Like people, crowds can either be wise or unwise depending on the situation. Famous experiments like guessing how many gumballs are in a jar work because each person who can see the jar has a source of valid information, and in aggregate that can be surprisingly accurate.

You can't assume that the majority of individuals participating in betting markets have a source of valid information. Given the destructiveness of these markets to both individuals and society, the aggregate wisdom of the individuals participating in these markets is highly doubtful. Any meager value above more traditional forecasting does not justify the cost, corruption and a loss of trust in institutions.

[kqr]

Nobody says this on assumption. It's well-evidenced.

https://polymarket.com/accuracy

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/track-record/

[_DeadFred_]

Please show the dollar/realized benefit to society VS (in response to OPs statement) the results don't "justify the cost, corruption and a loss of trust in institutions" along with a breakdown of the cost/negatives to society that result from those factors.

This isn't big oil (yet) you can't just externalize all the downside and say the product is a net benefit.

[Terr_]

Pish tosh, my dear sir, it's simply common-sense that there are oodles of people out there with secrets that would be completely ethical to distribute and would undeniably better all humankind, but they're sitting on them purely because they haven't figured out how to make a profit from it. /s

In other words, the overlap between these is too small to justify the idea that prediction markets are a net-benefit by default:

1. Is valuable

2. Not already known

3. No current reward mechanism exists (e.g. patents)

4. Not criminal or unethical to disclose

[doginasuit]

Well-evidenced by marketing from those same betting markets, got it.

[kqr]

I'd be interested in learning in what ways it is factually incorrect.