[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).