#预测市场 After reading this article about the risks of market manipulation in prediction markets, I thought of a very practical question: when market signals start to deviate from actual data, how should we judge?

The hypothetical scenario of the 2028 presidential election mentioned in the article is actually quite worth cautioning against. Someone is betting big on prediction markets to push up the win probability of a certain candidate, CNN follows suit with reports, and ordinary investors see this "signal" and follow, causing the price to continue rising—this creates a self-reinforcing illusion. But the key question is, can this kind of manipulation really last?

Historical data tells us it’s unlikely. During the InTrade manipulation attempt in 2012, traders successfully pushed the price up, but it was quickly pulled back by arbitrage trades from other traders. The manipulators even ended up losing a lot of money. This shows that in markets with sufficient liquidity, false signals are hard to sustain over the long term.

But this is precisely what I want to remind you of: **not all prediction markets have sufficient liquidity**. When market trading is inactive, a small amount of capital can cause significant fluctuations. If we want to use prediction markets as a reference, the first thing to look at is not the price itself, but whether there is genuine trading volume supporting the market.

My advice is, when planning any decision based on market signals, maintain two habits: first, cross-validation—compare polling data and fundamental data to see if the market price deviates significantly; second, focus on liquidity—markets where no one is betting real money have signals that are nearly worthless.

In the long run, prediction markets do have value, especially in an era where AI proliferation renders traditional polls ineffective. But the premise is that we must learn to distinguish between genuine expectations and carefully crafted illusions. This is not alarmism, but a necessary caution for prudent investing.