#预测市场 Seeing this analysis about prediction market manipulation, the first thought that comes to mind is: history really does repeat itself.

I've read the Washington Post article from 1905 countless times—back then, people were already worried about gambling markets being manipulated. Over a hundred years later, when facing Polymarket and Kalshi, we're asking the same question. The mysterious Romney large order on InTrade in 2012, the email in the 2004 Berlin election urging party members to "push up the stock price," the 2024 speculation about French investors... Connecting these events reveals a pattern: the impulse to manipulate is eternal; only the methods are evolving.

But what’s different this time is that CNN is about to start 24/7 continuous broadcasting of prediction market prices. This isn’t just a market issue; it’s a shift in the information ecosystem. When prediction market prices shift from a game among traders to a "public opinion reference" for ordinary people, and when AI can mass-fake public sentiment, a carefully designed manipulation is no longer just about quick profits—it can become a lever for shaping public opinion.

What’s truly alarming is that these manipulations often don’t need to succeed. The surge in Trump’s price in 2024 is essentially the handiwork of a gambler, but the panic over "foreign interference" it creates, the suspicion about the fairness of the system, might have a bigger impact than the actual price manipulation itself. In an era where any fluctuation can be easily interpreted as a conspiracy, even normal volatility caused by liquidity shortages can ignite a trust crisis.

The problem is, you can’t give up on prediction markets just because of risks. Traditional polls are already failing in an AI-saturated environment—response rates decline, AI-generated fake responses are hard to distinguish—and prediction markets still have real monetary incentives behind them. So the solution isn’t avoidance but defense.

Liquidity lower bounds, coordinated manipulation monitoring, transparency requirements, policy intervention—I'm very familiar with this set of strategies. Media only reports prices from active markets, making manipulation costly and discouraging; market operators establish anomaly detection systems, tracking foreign capital inflows and outflows; when unexplained price swings occur, regulators can act quickly. Individually, these measures aren’t new, but combined, they can turn prediction markets from political minefields into resilient tools.

I’ve seen too many market signals manipulated or over-interpreted. The key isn’t to completely prevent manipulation—that’s unrealistic—but to make manipulation lose its amplifying effect. A prediction market with ample liquidity, high transparency, and regulatory constraints makes manipulation too costly to be worthwhile. When the cost is high enough, those attempting to manipulate will naturally decrease.

History teaches us one thing: the same risks will keep recurring, but how we respond can determine the final outcome. This time, at least, we know our opponent’s tactics.