4 ms·
You make a very good argument against prediction markets in which the stake has actual material value, but what about markets where the only stake is your reput
by mfro 2y ago
You make a very good argument against prediction markets in which the stake has actual material value, but what about markets where the only stake is your reputation? My understanding of the Google platforms is that there were prize rewards for top predictors but largely the rewards were social, which, to me, implies they were not taken particularly seriously. An ideal platform might be one where there is no material incentive but users are instead interested in genuine hypothesizing about future events. Obviously there must be a genuine stake involved, but as we see with Manifold this can be done with 'play money'.
Would be very interested to see further discussion about this.
- kibwen 2y agoThe two problems I identify with this are 1) it underestimates the distorting effect of social rewards (see also karma farmers and serial confabulators on Reddit) and 2) it overlooks how verifiable reputation can be turned into profit by e.g. account-selling (once again, see Reddit).
- eitally 2y agoVery true. At Google it was treated much like Memegen where top bettors -- like top memers -- were rewarded with clout & notoriety, but it basically stopped there. A lot of the wagers actually were on "inside baseball" topics (will x/y/z be deprecated by a//b/c date, will perf metrics align with targets, etc). There are a few handfuls of folks who are really into it, but the vast majority of use is casual.