#预测市场 The prediction market manipulation issue actually has a long history. In the 1916 U.S. presidential election, the Romney surprise on InTrade in 2012, and the party email urging bets in the 2004 Berlin state election—these cases show us that the idea of influencing public opinion through price fluctuations has never been new.

The key question is: does manipulation really work? The answer may be surprising—it's difficult and costly. Studies show that even short-term price fluctuations are quickly corrected in highly liquid markets. Arbitrageurs will immediately buy or sell to bring prices back to reasonable levels. Manipulators often spend large sums but end up losing heavily.

But now the situation has become more complicated. Once prediction market prices start being broadcast in real-time on mainstream media like CNN, coupled with the amplification effect of social media, even brief price distortions can trigger "conspiracy theory" storms. The real impact becomes less important—the crucial point is that trust in the market is being undermined. Especially in an era where AI is everywhere and polling data is increasingly suspicious, prediction markets are originally a good supplementary signal. The issue lies in governance.

I believe the core recommendations are worth noting: news organizations should focus on highly liquid markets (since manipulation costs are high and information is more reliable); prediction market platforms should establish manipulation monitoring systems, set circuit breakers, and increase transparency; regulators should treat market manipulation affecting public opinion as within the scope of existing anti-manipulation laws, especially being vigilant against foreign interference.

This is not about abandoning prediction markets, but about ensuring that in an era of chaotic information ecosystems, this tool truly has resistance to manipulation. Otherwise, even the best market signals can become triggers for distrust.