🎉 Share Your 2025 Year-End Summary & Win $10,000 Sharing Rewards!
Reflect on your year with Gate and share your report on Square for a chance to win $10,000!
👇 How to Join:
1️⃣ Click to check your Year-End Summary: https://www.gate.com/competition/your-year-in-review-2025
2️⃣ After viewing, share it on social media or Gate Square using the "Share" button
3️⃣ Invite friends to like, comment, and share. More interactions, higher chances of winning!
🎁 Generous Prizes:
1️⃣ Daily Lucky Winner: 1 winner per day gets $30 GT, a branded hoodie, and a Gate × Red Bull tumbler
2️⃣ Lucky Share Draw: 10
#预测市场 Seeing the risk analysis of prediction markets being manipulated by AI to fake public opinion, I have to say a few serious words. This matter has far greater implications for on-chain activities than you might imagine.
Historically, there have been many cases of market manipulation—such as the 1916 betting market, Romney's bizarre surge on InTrade in 2012, and the 2004 Berlin election party mailing campaign mobilizing members to sell off—these are lessons learned the hard way. The key question is: does manipulation really work?
Research data is quite sobering. The case of the Iowa electronic market proves that even a single manipulator injecting huge funds can only temporarily push prices up. The market's resilience is stronger than you think; arbitrageurs will quickly bring prices back to rational levels. But don’t celebrate too early—things change in low-liquidity environments. When trading volume is thin and participation is sparse, prices can be distorted for a long time. This has long been common in small-cap coins and obscure projects.
The real danger is not manipulation itself, but the public panic caused by manipulated rumors. Even if market prices are quickly corrected, once the accusation of "someone trying to manipulate" spreads, trust collapses. This is true in political elections, and even more deadly in the crypto space—a single "suspected manipulation" can trigger a stampede.
Defense strategies should be as follows: First, monitor liquidity indicators; in low-liquidity markets, price fluctuations alone cannot be trusted. Second, cross-verify information sources; don’t rely solely on a single market price for judgment. Third, stay alert to sudden abnormal price increases or drops, especially when there is no news support. Fourth, check transparency data before participating—order books, trading concentration, and other basic information must be reviewed.
The core of surviving long on-chain is this—always assume someone is trying to harvest you. The worse the market liquidity and the less transparent the information, the deeper the trap. Prediction markets are no exception, even if they are very popular.