a16z: Why Do Prediction Markets Matter?

marsbitPubblicato 2026-06-01Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-06-01

Introduzione

Prediction markets, which allow users to trade on the outcome of future events, have gained significant traction, especially in the U.S. At their core, these markets function like any other market by aggregating information from all participants and translating it into a price signal—in this case, the perceived probability of a specific event occurring. Unlike polls or surveys that offer static snapshots, prediction markets provide dynamic, quantifiable probability estimates that update in real-time as new information and participants enter. A key advantage is the incentive structure: participants risk their own capital, which encourages serious research and trading based on genuine knowledge. This can surface information that traditional methods might miss. Furthermore, prediction markets can be created for a vast array of specialized questions—from geopolitical events to AI model performance—that aren't covered by traditional financial markets. However, several challenges remain. Infrastructure issues include reliably determining event outcomes and resolving disputes. Market design must ensure participation from well-informed individuals while preventing manipulation, such as insider trading or attempts to sway public perception by artificially moving prices. Addressing these concerns around rules, participation, and contract design is crucial. If these hurdles are overcome, prediction markets could evolve into a powerful, widely-used tool for forecasting and navigating u...

Author: Scott Duke Kominers, a16z crypto Research Partner

Compiler: Chopper, Foresight News

Prediction markets allow users to trade on the outcomes of various events. These platforms began scaling up in the United States last year, and their coverage now spans from geopolitics to entertainment award winners. But what exactly is a prediction market?

As an economic researcher who has long studied market mechanisms and incentive systems, my answer is simple: Prediction markets are, at their core, just ordinary markets. Markets are fundamental tools for allocating resources, enabling goods and services to flow to those who need them most. In this process, markets also aggregate information: the supply-demand clearing process integrates information held by all participants and converts it into signals like prices.

Prediction market platforms and related products directly leverage this information aggregation capability to forecast the direction of specific future events. Platforms issue assets tied to specific events; holders earn a payoff if the preset outcome occurs. Users trade these assets based on their judgment of the event's probability. For a long time, many companies have used prediction markets to tap into employees' implicit knowledge to assess whether key products would launch on schedule. Researchers also use these tools to evaluate which experimental conclusions are replicable. Today, several media organizations partner with prediction markets, supplementing frontline reporting and traditional coverage with collective intelligence to enrich their content.

Prediction markets gather all participants' individual judgments about the future and integrate these views into a trading market to estimate the probability of various events. Users betting on outcomes on such markets operate on the same logic as those predicting a company's stock price in the stock market or trading oil prices in the commodity market. The difference is that the price of an asset like oil is influenced by multiple complex factors, while a prediction market asset yields a return only if a specified event occurs.

When oil prices rise, we can infer that current demand exceeds supply, but we may not know the underlying reason: is the market worried about escalating Middle East tensions, or has oil found a new application? Prediction markets can create separate trading instruments for single possibilities, enabling precise and granular forecasting. For example, a market for "whether the Strait of Hormuz will be open for normal traffic at a specified time" could have contract rules set as: if true, each contract pays out $1. As users continuously buy and sell, the market price becomes a probabilistic indicator, reflecting the collective judgment of all traders on the likelihood of the event.

The operating logic is as follows: If the current price per contract is $0.50, it means the market judges the probability at 50%. If you believe the probability of passage is higher, say 67%, you would buy the contract. If correct, your $0.50 purchase would yield a $0.67 payoff. This buying action would push the market price and estimated probability higher, indicating that a trader believes the market previously underestimated the event's likelihood. Conversely, if someone thinks the current price is too high, they would sell or short the contract, pulling down the market's probability estimate.

Compared to other forecasting methods, well-functioning prediction markets offer significant advantages. First, they directly output quantitative probability results, which is a core highlight. Polls and surveys can only count the proportion of opinions; translating that into event probabilities requires additional statistical methods to analyze the relationship between sample data and the overall population. Furthermore, poll results are mostly static data from a single point in time, while prediction markets update judgments in real-time as new participants enter or new information emerges.

More crucially, prediction markets have built-in incentive constraints. Both buyers and sellers invest real money and will suffer losses if their judgment is wrong. This forces participants to carefully assess the information they possess and prioritize trading in areas where they are more familiar and have greater informational advantages. Conversely, the desire to profit from information and expertise incentivizes people to actively conduct research and dig deeper into event-related clues. A well-known case is that, prior to the 2024 U.S. election, some prediction market participants conducted unconventional polling specifically to gather information traditional pollsters couldn't access.

Finally, the coverage scope of prediction markets is extremely broad. In theory, a trader with oil industry information can express their view by going long or short on oil contracts. However, in reality, there are numerous event outcomes that cannot be forecast through mainstream commodity or stock markets. These scenarios are precisely where prediction markets can play a role. For example, many prediction markets have recently launched contracts to comprehensively evaluate the performance of various AI models across different tasks. Trends in such niche areas are difficult to reflect in traditional commodity markets. Anyone can create and fund a prediction market to address such specialized questions.

Prediction markets are not a new phenomenon; their earliest forms can be traced back to 16th-century Europe, where they were used to predict the next Pope. Modern prediction markets combine knowledge from economics, statistics, market design, and computer science. In the 1980s, Charles Plott and Shyam Sunder first established a formal academic framework for this mechanism. Soon after, the world's first modern prediction market—the Iowa Electronic Markets—launched. Leveraging internet technology, this model has integrated fragmented information from around the globe and continued to develop.

However, several challenges remain to be solved to fully realize the potential of prediction markets. First, at the infrastructure level: how to determine the final outcome of an event and reach consensus, how to ensure transparent market operation and traceable transactions; and how to implement large-scale dispute resolution mechanisms when contract payouts are contested or even subject to manipulation.

Second, there are challenges in market design. First, people with key information must participate. If all participants are uninformed, the market price signal is worthless. Conversely, if various informed parties are unwilling to enter, the prediction will be biased. I argued as early as 2016 that prediction markets underestimated the probability of events like Brexit and Trump's first presidential election win because participants at the time failed to perceive the trend of rising populism.

Furthermore, the participation of individuals with insider information poses risks, especially if they have the ability to influence the event's outcome. Imagine if insiders in a papal conclave placed bets in a "next Pope" prediction market using privileged information for front-running; or worse, secretly intervened in the election to favor their own holdings. If participants widely believe the market is rife with insider trading, they will leave, ultimately causing the market to collapse.

Another risk is that someone might deliberately manipulate prediction market prices to influence public perception of event probabilities. In this case, the prediction market becomes a tool for manipulating public opinion rather than aggregating views. For example, a campaign could use its funds to artificially inflate its own market probability of winning, creating a false sense of lead. However, prediction markets have some self-correcting ability: as long as prices deviate significantly from a reasonable range, traders will place opposing bets to hedge against unreasonable pricing.

These issues indicate that prediction markets need further refinement of rules, clarifying standards for participant access, contract design, and overall operation. But if industry practitioners can solve these problems one by one, prediction markets will ultimately become an important tool for humanity to forecast the future and navigate uncertainty.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the fundamental economic principle behind prediction markets according to the article?

AAccording to the article, the fundamental principle is that prediction markets are essentially ordinary markets. They harness the core function of markets to aggregate information from all participants and convert it into price signals, which are then used to forecast the probability of future events.

QHow does a prediction market translate market price into a probability estimate?

AIn a prediction market, a contract is created for a specific event. If the event occurs, the contract pays out a fixed amount (e.g., $1). Therefore, the market price of that contract directly reflects the collective probability assessment of the event happening. For example, a price of $0.50 implies the market believes there is a 50% chance the event will occur.

QWhat are three key advantages prediction markets have over traditional methods like polls?

AFirst, they provide direct, quantifiable probability estimates, whereas polls only show opinion distribution. Second, they are dynamic and update in real-time with new information and participation, unlike static poll snapshots. Third, they incorporate financial incentives, which encourage participants to act on their genuine beliefs and superior information.

QWhat are two major infrastructural challenges facing prediction markets mentioned in the article?

AThe two major infrastructural challenges are: 1) Determining event outcomes and establishing consensus, especially when disputes arise. 2) Ensuring market transparency, transaction traceability, and implementing scalable adjudication mechanisms to handle issues like manipulation or contested results.

QWhat market design challenge is illustrated by the example of insider trading in a papal election prediction market?

AThe example highlights the challenge of preventing participants with insider information or the ability to influence the event's outcome from trading. If such actors participate (e.g., a cardinal betting on the election), it can distort the market's predictive accuracy, undermine trust, and potentially lead to market collapse if other participants suspect widespread manipulation.

Letture associate

Trading Reflection: Why Does Trading Cryptocurrencies Become More Miserable the Longer You Do It? In Fact, Your Brain Has Been 'Damaged' by Stress.

Trading Reflection: Why Does Trading Cryptocurrency Become More Miserable Over Time? Your Brain Might Be Damaged by Stress This article explores the often-overlooked yet crucial psychological aspect of trading. It argues that long-term success depends less on intellect and more on the survival capacity of one's nervous system. The core issue is that sustained trading pressure disrupts normal brain chemistry. While initial hope and occasional wins provide dopamine-driven pleasure, repeated losses and constant market exposure trigger chronic cortisol release. This stress hormone, meant for short-term survival, keeps the trader in a perpetual "fight-or-flight" mode. Over time, this erodes sleep quality, depletes patience, and fuels emotional, impulsive decision-making. The author describes a dangerous cycle: fear of missing out leads to overtrading and lowered standards. As losses mount (30%, 50%), trading shifts from a pursuit of profit to a psychological battle for survival. The brain begins to associate prolonged stress with the occasional reward, trapping the trader in an addictive loop. Anxiety becomes a baseline state, and trading turns into a compulsive need to feel something—where green candles offer relief and red ones spark self-loathing. The most powerful move a trader can make, the article concludes, is sometimes to stop entirely—to avoid revenge trading, chasing losses, or seeking dopamine fixes. The key is to step back long enough to ask: is this still about passion, or is it a cage of stress hormones? The market and its opportunities will always return, but a trader who is mentally broken will have nothing left to capitalize on them. The best traders are not necessarily the smartest, but those who preserve their mental well-being long enough to stay in the game. Ultimately, the chase may not be for money, but for relief from the very pressure the game creates.

marsbit13 min fa

Trading Reflection: Why Does Trading Cryptocurrencies Become More Miserable the Longer You Do It? In Fact, Your Brain Has Been 'Damaged' by Stress.

marsbit13 min fa

Issued Two Work Badges to Unitree

At the keynote of his speech at the Taipei Music Center, Jensen Huang introduced a humanoid robot named Isaac GR00T. This robot, described as a 'reference design,' is a collaboration: its body comes from Unitree Robotics' H2 Plus, its hands from Singapore's Sharpa, and its 'brain'—the chip and full software stack—is from Nvidia, powered by the Jetson Thor. Huang positioned it as a turnkey solution for universities and researchers, aimed at drastically reducing setup time for experiments. On the same day as this reveal, Unitree Robotics passed its IPO review in Shanghai, seeking to raise 4.2 billion yuan, with a significant portion earmarked for developing its own embodied AI model—its own 'brain.' The article draws a parallel to the smartphone industry, where Qualcomm's 'reference design' led to homogenized hardware and concentrated profits in chips and software. It suggests Nvidia's GR00T initiative follows a similar playbook: by open-sourcing the model and framework, it aims to establish the industry standard, potentially relegating hardware makers to low-margin roles. While currently a body supplier for Nvidia's project, Unitree is actively pursuing its own AI brain, having open-sourced initial models and tested a more advanced one. The company faces a critical window to develop a competitive proprietary system before GR00T becomes the default. The article contrasts this with Tesla's vertically integrated approach for its Optimus robot, which uses in-house chips and benefits from its automotive data and manufacturing scale. It concludes that while the robot body still holds technical value and differentiation, the race for the 'brain' will ultimately define the industry's profit centers and power dynamics.

marsbit16 min fa

Issued Two Work Badges to Unitree

marsbit16 min fa

Variant: Three L1 Assets That Could Become Primary Stores of Value

The core belief at Variant is that individuals should own their money, identity, and data. A key framework for evaluating first-layer blockchain (L1) networks is viewing their native tokens as potential stores of value (SOV). A good SOV asset is defined by several key attributes: technical durability (its likelihood to exist and function in 5-10 years), scarcity and predictable inflation, censorship resistance, economic productivity (its utility in facilitating economic activity), memetic strength (widespread social consensus on its value), and liquidity. Based on this framework, three L1 assets are highlighted as leading contenders for becoming major SOVs, each excelling in different dimensions: * **Bitcoin (BTC)** is dominant in memetic strength, widely recognized as "digital gold." Its growing belief network among individuals and institutions reinforces its SOV status. * **Ethereum (ETH)** excels in technical durability and adaptability. Its ability to upgrade and a transparent roadmap provide confidence in its long-term resilience against future challenges. * **Zcash (ZEC)** offers superior censorship resistance and privacy through its shielded pools. This provides individuals with a long-term option to protect assets from confiscation or surveillance. The total market for SOV assets like gold is immense (gold's market cap is ~$31T). Despite often surpassing traditional SOVs on these fundamental metrics, digital assets currently capture only a small fraction of this market, representing a significant opportunity for growth. The article posits that multiple digital SOVs can coexist in this expanding space.

链捕手1 h fa

Variant: Three L1 Assets That Could Become Primary Stores of Value

链捕手1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片