One ever underrated challenge with prediction markets is creating clear and concise rules for interesting questions, while the easy part is the tech powering the exchange.
For example, "James McIntyre is predicting that: There will be a global stock market crash in 2024." What constitutes a crash here? Or "Patricia Davenport is predicting that: An absolutely massive natural gas discovery will be made by a Southern African country before the end of 2023." has no clear meaning.
Didn’t this issue loosely arise with the 2020 US election and all the people trying to argue that the authority on who won was not legitimate?
Most bets cannot be discretely quantified because there’s always something to argue about (such as the measurement methods). I think all it requires is for all parties to agree on an authority that makes the call.
Probably impactful for real money websites, but I can’t imagine anyone really cares for this fun money website where a good judgement can be applied pretty easily.
It's obviously more impactful for real money websites, but realizing that two people mean different things by the same statement is pretty common. I think even fake money prediction markets are much more interesting if you largely avoid that.
I've played plenty of both and it really is just as annoying with play money if the rules of the game are flawed. It just feels like cheating if a loose interpretation of the rules let's people off the hook for a bad prediction.
For example, "James McIntyre is predicting that: There will be a global stock market crash in 2024." What constitutes a crash here? Or "Patricia Davenport is predicting that: An absolutely massive natural gas discovery will be made by a Southern African country before the end of 2023." has no clear meaning.