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

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Charlie Munger's Calculated "Loss-Making Account" Many traders, drawn to speculative tools like futures contracts, often face repeated failures. As the article notes, unless one is a genius, such instruments should be avoided for long-term profit-seeking. Similarly, the practice of short selling is viewed with caution. The author firmly states a policy of not shorting, even when bearish, preferring to simply wait. The core reason? Successful short selling requires exceptionally difficult conditions to profit. Legendary investors Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have themselves reflected on painful short-selling experiences. Munger highlights two critical flaws in the mathematical logic of shorting: 1. Asymmetrical Risk/Reward: A long position has a maximum loss of 100% but unlimited upside. A short position caps profit at 100% (if a stock falls to zero) but carries theoretically unlimited loss potential. 2. The "Promoter" Problem: Fraudulent or struggling companies can prolong their decline. As Munger said, "You can run out of money before the promoter runs out of ideas," meaning short sellers may be forced to cover positions at a loss before the company's true fate unfolds. The article cites Stanley Druckenmiller, a famed hedge fund manager. He once shorted 12 companies that all eventually went bankrupt. However, intense market rallies forced him to cover his positions within three weeks, resulting in massive losses—$200 million of his capital plus an additional $600 million. He concluded he likely never made money shorting in his career. His experience perfectly illustrates Munger's points: facing unlimited losses and being wiped out before being proven right. The conclusion is clear: for most investors, complex instruments like short selling and derivatives are not viable paths to stable, long-term gains. Self-reflection is advised before repeatedly wasting time and capital on such speculative strategies.

marsbit26 min fa

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

marsbit26 min fa

For Hedging, Buy Gold and Oil; For Explosive Growth, Buy AI; Bitcoin, the 'Outdated' Asset, Enters a Bear Market

Bitcoin’s price has recently fallen sharply, hitting a two-month low near $66,000, with Ethereum also dropping to a three-month low. While surface explanations point to ETF outflows, geopolitical tensions, and corporate selling, a deeper issue is emerging: Bitcoin is losing a crucial asset competition. For years, Bitcoin thrived in a low-rate environment where investors sought alternatives amid inflation fears and dissatisfaction with traditional options. Now, the market landscape has shifted, leaving Bitcoin stuck in an "awkward middle ground," facing challenges on three fronts: 1. **As an inflation hedge, gold is winning.** Investors worried about persistent inflation are turning to tangible assets like gold, energy stocks, and commodity producers, which offer more direct pricing power and physical backing. 2. **For growth exposure, AI is winning.** Those seeking high growth now favor AI-related companies with actual revenues and profits, an area where Bitcoin's lack of cash flow puts it at a disadvantage. 3. **Within crypto, infrastructure and stablecoins are winning.** Even investors wanting crypto exposure have alternatives like exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and tokenization firms, whose performance is directly tied to real-world adoption and offers clearer operational leverage. The recent market reaction to inflation warnings highlights this shift. Instead of boosting Bitcoin as "digital gold," such news now drives flows toward traditional inflation-sensitive assets. Therefore, recent events like ETF outflows and corporate selling are seen not as causes, but as symptoms of this new reality. Capital has more compelling options, and investors are becoming more selective. The emerging bear case for Bitcoin is no longer about it being a fraud or failed technology, but rather that **scarcity alone is no longer enough**. It is no longer seen as the best hedge, the best growth asset, or the only crypto play.

marsbit42 min fa

For Hedging, Buy Gold and Oil; For Explosive Growth, Buy AI; Bitcoin, the 'Outdated' Asset, Enters a Bear Market

marsbit42 min fa

SaaS Battle Royale: The Survivors Who Win All Share One Common Trait

**Summary** The AI revolution has triggered a "SaaS apocalypse," forcing a brutal market shakeout. The key dividing line is the pricing model. Companies like Snowflake and Datadog, which charge based on consumption (e.g., data processed or compute used), are thriving. AI workloads actively *generate* more demand for their services, fueling growth. Datadog's accelerating revenue is a prime example. Microsoft and Palantir, as platform/ecosystem players, also benefit by acting as essential channels for AI deployment. In contrast, traditional SaaS firms built on per-seat or per-task licensing (e.g., Intuit, Adobe) face direct pressure, as AI threatens to automate the very human tasks their software supports. Companies like Salesforce, a per-seat giant, are caught in the middle. While showing strong AI monetization (e.g., its Agentforce platform) and experimenting with consumption-based "Flex Credits," its stock remains under pressure, illustrating that the market rewards *completed* transitions, not just the intent. The recent Microsoft Build conference underscored key trends: AI is evolving from an assistant to an autonomous "agent," and platform providers like Microsoft are consolidating their control. The market's recovery is highly selective, focused on identifying which companies are "fed by AI" versus "eaten by AI." Future focus will be on the diffusion of this recovery to transforming companies and the real-world adoption data of AI agents like Microsoft Copilot.

marsbit59 min fa

SaaS Battle Royale: The Survivors Who Win All Share One Common Trait

marsbit59 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片