Prediction markets are a way to cut through the fog and find truth. This isn't the equivalent of playing blackjack or roulette. In today's world, it's increasingly difficult to find people in the media who are telling the truth. Pundits everywhere can proffer predictions without being on the hook for anything if they're wrong.
Prediction markets let you more accurately know in advance pretty much anything: war, economic calamity, political outcomes like who will win an election, whether a drug will be approved, etc. and they are a genuine innovation over the current media landscape. Check out Metaculus for an example of the concept with imaginary points; it'd be more accurate if real money were allowed.
Gambling and addiction is a major problem, certainly, and I'm not arguing for zero regulation on gambling. (I could quibble on prediction markets being gambling, though they are closer to it than not.)
Regulators are so useless that they are perfectly willing to allow crypto, Las Vegas casinos and sports betting to exist and be advertised broadly (things with essentially 0 value to society), but an _actually_ useful form of dealing with probability and chance that can help people chart an uncertain world isn't allowed to exist.
Well, except in limited cases if you spend enough money greasing the right pockets and can take down a competitor too. :)
Prediction markets are a fantastic concept with a ton of value I think for everyone. So I wish companies in the field success and I hope they thrive despite regulators doing their best to destroy them, like PredictIt.
I think it's a shame Kalshi has managed to get their hooks into the CFTC and, rather than lobby to open the field to all prediction markets, instead lobbied for narrow permissions to operate only their stuff (in a limited, less useful way) while killing their competitors.
It's a terrible way to operate a business and it's a black stain on YC for funding a company using these kinds of underhanded methods.
I can only hope the regulatory environment improves and we get some improvements at the CFTC, but I think anyone familiar with US government institutions would bet against it. Perhaps someone could open a question about it on a prediction market.
China counts Covid deaths differently than most countries. Recent claims about them only having 3 deaths despite a surge in cases are, as far as I can tell, making the fundamental mistake that China has far more stringent requirements to call something a "Covid death". The true number of Chinese Covid deaths is likely higher - though I imagine still lower than in places like America.
Furthermore, the lockdowns have caused quite a few deaths on their own through things like delaying access to healthcare, and we don't have reliable stats here. One doctor is estimating 1000 diabetes patients will die from lack of healthcare access during the lockdowns (again, we do have to apply some skepticism to the numbers). Lockdowns aren't costless and merely keeping people locked in place for a short period.
I won't disagree that there's a tradeoff you can consider for China's approach, but we all need to be very wary when trying to compare numbers between Western nations and China.
Yikes, Intel. Has to be a pretty low moment as a chipmaker to have to use your competitor's fabs for something like this.