[Planktonne]

If you're consistently wrong, then it's time to stop being a thought leader, and really examine the lens through which you view the world.

The author still thinks they were "freeing prediction markets from unnecessary restrictions", but clearly some restrictions are necessary, and totally free markets aren't actually an economic panacea. This is not really new information, so the flaw is in the thinker, not the data.

If your ideas are consistently proved harmful, acting against your instincts is a better play than continuing to trust them.

[fwipsy]

You're mischaracterizing. He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it.

As far as I can tell, prediction markets went from totally illegal to basically unregulated. Presumably the author was arguing for a middle ground.

[Planktonne]

The author wrote their article--they had the chance to clarify their position. The facts remain: on multiple occasions, they have been instrumental in negative outcomes because of their support for things that we already knew were a bad idea. They should stop giving advice.

[fwipsy]

Fair point.

[saghm]

> He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it.

I would expect that if they didn't think they were unnecessary anymore, they would have said something like "I helped build the case for freeing prediction markets from restrictions that I thought were unnecessary". Their description of the predictions being unnecessary is still stated as a present tense fact (and the entire clause is in bold-face, making it clear that it's something they want to draw attention to).