3 ms·
Nobody says this on assumption. It's well-evidenced. https://polymarket.com/accuracy https://polymarket.com/accuracy https://www.metaculus.com/questions/track
by kqr 7mo ago
Nobody says this on assumption. It's well-evidenced.
https://polymarket.com/accuracy https://polymarket.com/accuracy
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/track-record/ https://www.metaculus.com/questions/track-record/
- _DeadFred_ 7mo agoPlease show the dollar/realized benefit to society VS (in response to OPs statement) the results don't "justify the cost, corruption and a loss of trust in institutions" along with a breakdown of the cost/negatives to society that result from those factors. This isn't big oil (yet) you can't just externalize all the downside and say the product is a net benefit.
- Terr_ 7mo agoPish tosh, my dear sir, it's simply common-sense that there are oodles of people out there with secrets that would be completely ethical to distribute and would undeniably better all humankind, but they're sitting on them purely because they haven't figured out how to make a profit from it. /s In other words, the overlap between these is too small to justify the idea that prediction markets are a net-benefit by default: 1. Is valuable 2. Not already known 3. No current reward mechanism exists (e.g. patents) 4. Not criminal or unethical to disclose
- doginasuit 7mo agoWell-evidenced by marketing from those same betting markets, got it.
- kqr 7mo agoI'd be interested in learning in what ways it is factually incorrect.