The author was instrumental in a colleague ruining their life through a gambling addiction. Then they helped make the case for prediction markets, which also went wrong.
Their track record is not great, and I don't think they fully realise that the issue is them: the principles and axioms they rely on don't lead to good results.
> I don’t claim to know the exact right policy answer for America.
Perhaps start by reversing your positions, and throwing support behind those trying to undo the damage you caused.
If you're consistently wrong, then it's time to stop being a thought leader, and really examine the lens through which you view the world.
The author still thinks they were "freeing prediction markets from unnecessary restrictions", but clearly some restrictions are necessary, and totally free markets aren't actually an economic panacea. This is not really new information, so the flaw is in the thinker, not the data.
If your ideas are consistently proved harmful, acting against your instincts is a better play than continuing to trust them.
Put the same energy into championing regulation then. Don't walk away from a mess you claim to have helped create. (which the OP may indeed be doing, but it isn't clear they are, hence the chiding)
The author was instrumental in a colleague ruining their life through a gambling addiction. Then they helped make the case for prediction markets, which also went wrong.
Their track record is not great, and I don't think they fully realise that the issue is them: the principles and axioms they rely on don't lead to good results.
> I don’t claim to know the exact right policy answer for America.
Perhaps start by reversing your positions, and throwing support behind those trying to undo the damage you caused.
Finally a solution to being wrong - just invert all your opinions!
If you're consistently wrong, then it's time to stop being a thought leader, and really examine the lens through which you view the world.
The author still thinks they were "freeing prediction markets from unnecessary restrictions", but clearly some restrictions are necessary, and totally free markets aren't actually an economic panacea. This is not really new information, so the flaw is in the thinker, not the data.
If your ideas are consistently proved harmful, acting against your instincts is a better play than continuing to trust them.
Put the same energy into championing regulation then. Don't walk away from a mess you claim to have helped create. (which the OP may indeed be doing, but it isn't clear they are, hence the chiding)
The people regulating this are the people profiting from it. Championing change isn't too different from prostrating in front of the King.
Your advice might work in a different world.
People always assume that others will use something with good intentions, but in practice, malice tends to take root before goodwill does.
And some things always are malicious, like "prediction markets", which is just gambling reworded to sound like something else.
This was never, ever going to end well. There is no good use of "prediction markets".
Not so much malice as greed and lack of empathy.