This question resolves Yes if, before 2028, credible sources (as defined below) report that a sovereign state has, itself or through an agent working on its behalf, executed one or more trades on a real-money prediction market (including cryptocurrency-based markets) for the purposes of manipulating the market's pricing or implied probability.
Credible sources shall be defined using Metaculus' definition:
A "credible source" will be taken to be an online or in-print published story from a journalistic source, or information publicly posted on a the website of an organization by that organization making public information pertaining to that organization, or in another source where the preponderance of evidence suggests that the information is correct and that there is no significant controversy surrounding the information or its correctness. It will generally not include unsourced information found in blogs, facebook or twitter postings, or websites of individuals.
Update 2024-08-13: It was my original intent that "real-money prediction market" include crypto-currency based markets (e.g., Polymarket). I've edited the above to make this explicit.
1,000
1.00I think this is unlikely. For it to resolve yes:
Prediction markets must reach a level of prominence and influence with the general public that manipulating them becomes strategically valuable to a state;
And yet the relevant markets must be illiquid enough that a state actor can manipulate them on a sustained basis (it has to be sustained to be effective IMO, a brief dip won't do much);
Markets that are sufficiently anonymous and sufficiently unlimited (no KYC and/or no max bet) must continue to exist;
The state actor must be convincingly 'caught' and reported on
Point 1: Getting there; I subjectively believe we're 'nearly' at that point for US presidential elections, but not quite; I don't think we're particularly close for other elections or topics though, and the 2028 US election falls outside of the question period.
Point 2: the US presidential market on Polymarket currently has >$0.5bn in volume, and more would be attracted in if the market were substantially manipulated (=subsidized) by a state actor. I suspect that there are more compelling attacks one can do for e.g. ~$50m, and as market prominence goes up cost goes up.
Point 3: "serious" markets tend to have volume limits and KYC, so won't be easily manipulable at scale without leaving a lot of evidence; crypto markets tend to be pseudonymous and unlimited (at this stage). I think there's a material risk that pseudonymous/unlimited markets will be regulated out of existence before too long.
Point 4: I don't think it's possible to hide that substantial manipulation is occurring, but it is possible to do it in a way that is not convincingly attributable to a state actor. (Possible but not guaranteed: I'd assume odds of a state actor eventually being proven, given that such an attack occurs in the first place, are ballpark 50-50)
@draaglom tl;dr—Decomposing the question, I'm about 90% on "a sovereign does it" and 25% on "it gets credibly reported". I think there's a meaningful (idk....>15%) chance that the Maduro regime did this in the last few months.
Despite my "Yes" position (which I fully expect to lose value), I agree with most of this. A few points where I don't agree:
Point 1: I think you're generally right here, but that on some relatively low-volume markets (or even big ones), intelligence outfits could see market manipulation as a very cheap experiment. e.g., imagine a scenario where Maduro has a slightly more colorable argument that he won, and throws a few $100k at this Polymarket question to generate some press showing that "people with a track-record of being right" think he won. This isn't a great example—simply because the specific dynamics wouldn't have made it a good investment for Maduro—but it gestures at what I think is a likely use case. (Oh, wait, maybe he did. 🤔 Indeed, it would have been very cheap to move the market at that time, and then get coverage in the regime-funded news agency.)
Point 3:
I don't think KYC is a barrier at all....it seems really easy to find/create the right strawman trader and cover your tracks pretty well.
I'm skeptical that pseudonymous markets will be regulated out of existence, broadly (maybe in the US). But I also haven't thought about this much...especially the regulatory vibes outside of the US.
Point 4: I'm lower here...I think it's only 25-30% and I wonder if even that's too high. Seems like something where it would be pretty easy to cover your tracks.