I'm very tempted to agree that those markets are not providing a positive force, given the focus on questions for which a small group of people know the answer ahead of time. They are not sharing that information because it is not in their interest, and insiders likely won’t have a great time for long.

However, there is large value for some people in knowing when a country will be invaded: if you live there, you know when to leave; if you are an airline, when to stop scheduling flights there, or, if a lot of people are in the first group, up until when to schedule many more flights to get them out. But I’m positive the invading army would prefer some kid in a basement didn’t make one Lieutenant General on the committee obscenely rich overnight.

I wished the focused on markets where many people are part of the decision, like elections. There, the wisdom of the crowds would add some value.

> there is large value for some people in knowing when a country will be invaded

Are there any examples of people/companies trusting degenerate gamblers on prediction markets and making real life-changing decisions?

All the examples I’ve seen are exactly what I started in my original post - the insider circle opening a massive position on the right invasion date mere minutes/hours before they actually do it. This is useful to precisely nobody! And it happens because they are insiders, who want to avoid risk of exposure. Not to share their godly wisdom with the world for others benefit.

> Are there any examples of people/companies trusting degenerate gamblers on prediction markets and making real life-changing decisions?

If "real life-changing decisions" includes deciding to take a flight based on polymarket placing a low price on war breaking out, then yes.

I'd also challenge you to outperform "Degenerate gamblers"

> then yes.

I missed a link to any source for this claim?

> I'd also challenge you to outperform

I wasn't making a competition out of this - rather I'm questioning the fundamental basis of this.

I don't have links. I'm a yeshiva student and many of my friends study in Israel and/or fly back and forth and I know multiple people who used polymarket to make flying decisions.

> questioning the fundamental basis of this.

Empirically, you can look at https://calibration.city/ (among other such trackers) look at polymarket, filter by market midpoint and you'll see that if a market resolves in a year, and 6 months in it's at 30%, the actual event happens at (remarkably close) to 30% of the time.

Theoretically, it relies on standard market theories, like efficient markets hypothesis etc. Basically, however corn comes ot be valued correctly, much of the same mechanisms are present here

> yeshiva

Doesn’t Orthodox Judaism (like all religions) look quite harshly upon all forms of gambling? How is Polymarket kosher?

To be clear, I didn’t question efficient market hypotheses - my stance has been pretty clear along the thread, questioning the value of the kind of information gambled upon in popular prediction markets.

Yes, it does. I never gambled on Polymarket, I look at it to figure out the odds of things I care about.

I thought I explained the value quite clearly. ~10 years ago if you wanted to know the odds your flight will get canceled due to war, you had to trust the hyperventilating talking head on your favorite cable news channel (who's job it was to keep you watching...). Now you get basically the actual odds. If that's not value, I don't know what is.

Question the sanity or also could question the ethics.

Value? The market itself values having Google insiders ("Wow I can now ask questions about Googles' internal affairs") and Google values knowledge of leaks.

Aside from those tertiary effects, perhaps people would pay Google to know this information ahead of time but previously lacked the coordination to make a deal directly.

I'm sure people with business (plans) in country X question your sanity too. Markets create value, not postitve force. Only people can do that.