Industry Perspective: Prediction markets that can be manipulated by a single trader should not be launched.

Gate News reports that on March 23, as prediction market platforms gain mainstream attention during U.S. election cycles and geopolitical events, their prices are increasingly cited as real-time signals. However, some argue that this premise fails when contracts create economic incentives for participants to alter the outcomes they measure.

The core issue, they say, lies in product design rather than volatility. When a result can be achieved by a single actor through a single action, the contract shifts from a prediction tool to an execution script. For example, in the case of Super Bowl stadium intrusion bets, traders who bet “yes” then personally carry out the act; such cases have actually occurred.

Political and event markets are considered especially vulnerable because they often rely on discrete nodes that can be influenced at low cost and have thin liquidity. If participants begin to suspect that outcomes are being artificially manipulated, the platform’s credibility will be compromised. In contrast, sports markets, with high visibility, multi-layer governance, and multi-party participation structures, are more resistant to individual manipulation.

The viewpoint recommends that prediction market platforms establish clear listing standards to exclude contracts that can be easily manipulated by a single participant or that could constitute harm bounties; otherwise, external regulation may intervene.