Vitalik Says Prediction Markets Aren’t the Threat Critics Make Them Out to Be

Why Are Prediction Markets Under Fire?

Prediction markets are once again at the center of a regulatory and political fight in the United States. Critics argue that allowing people to trade contracts tied to real-world events creates unhealthy incentives that could threaten everything from sports integrity to democratic processes.

That criticism has intensified as platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi have expanded well beyond political forecasting. Sports-related contracts now dominate activity. At Kalshi, sports events account for more than 90% of , reflecting how rapidly prediction markets have moved into territory traditionally occupied by sportsbooks.

US states have responded by attempting to regulate these platforms as gambling operations. Prediction market operators reject that framing, arguing they function as derivatives platforms and should fall under the authority of the rather than state gaming regulators.

This jurisdictional clash has turned prediction markets into a legal battleground, with outcomes that could shape whether event-based trading remains accessible to US users.

Buterin’s Argument: The Risk Already Exists

has emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of prediction markets. Over the weekend, he addressed claims that such platforms encourage people to cause harm in order to profit.

“The worst thing these markets could do in theory, is create incentives for people to cause harm by making it simple to profit,” Buterin wrote on social media.

He argued that this concern is not unique to prediction markets. According to Buterin, similar incentives already exist across .

“If you are a political actor with a ‘CAUSE DISASTER’ button, then you could be motivated to press it simply by shorting all the stocks,” he wrote.

In other words, the ability to profit from negative outcomes has long been embedded in financial systems through short tradeing and derivatives. Singling out prediction markets, in his view, ignores that broader reality.

Investor Takeaway

Sports, Politics, and the Integrity Debate

Sports leagues have become some of the most outspoken opponents of prediction markets. Earlier this month, National Football League executive Jeff Miller warned lawmakers that event contracts tied to in-game actions pose “substantially greater risks to contest integrity” than traditional sportsbooks, according to ESPN.

Miller highlighted contracts allowing bets on whether terms such as “concussion protocol,” “late hit,” or “roughing the passer” would be mentioned during broadcasts. Critics argue such markets could influence behavior by players, officials, or media personnel.

Beyond sports, geopolitical and policy-related contracts have drawn even sharper criticism. On Polymarket, users can trade contracts tied to leadership changes, conflicts, or central bank decisions. Detractors claim that allowing financial exposure to events such as regime change or war introduces moral hazards, even if the odds of real-world influence remain low.

These concerns prompted the last year to propose changes to rules governing event contracts. The agency described markets tied to terrorism, assassination, or war as morally “offensive” and warned they could, however marginally, encourage harmful acts.

Information Tool or Dangerous Incentive?

Supporters counter that prediction markets offer informational value that other media channels lack. Economists have long argued that markets aggregating financial stakes can reflect collective expectations more accurately than opinion polls or commentary.

Buterin framed prediction markets as an alternative to social media rather than a substitute for traditional betting.

“The thing to compare them to is social media,” he wrote.

He argued that social platforms often reward alarmism and exaggeration, while prediction markets force participants to back their views with capital. In his experience, market prices can provide emotional grounding when headlines spiral.

“I can personally report a few times reading a news headline, feeling scared, then checking Polymarket prices and feeling calmer,” he wrote.

He cited a 2024 example in which Elon Musk suggested civil war in the UK was inevitable. At the time, Polymarket traders placed the probability at just 3%, offering a stark contrast to the tone of online discourse.

Investor Takeaway

What Comes Next for Prediction Markets?

The future of prediction markets in the US now hinges on regulatory classification. If treated as gambling, platforms face state-by-state licensing hurdles that could sharply limit scale. If treated as derivatives, oversight would consolidate under federal rules but bring tighter compliance obligations.

Either path carries consequences for liquidity, product design, and user access. What is clear is that prediction markets are no longer a fringe experiment. As volumes grow and use cases expand, scrutiny is following closely behind.

For crypto and fintech observers, the debate has become a proxy fight over who gets to define financial innovation—and where the line sits between information markets and betting.