This morning I read this article about prediction markets by @BlockBeatsAsia, and it sent chills down my spine.

I’ve heard some people praise prediction markets as “great” because they inspire a kind of ultimate agency.

Take the analysis in this article, for example: a Google executive might place a huge bet on a trending person for the year on the platform. To win this massive wager, he could use his authority to subtly tweak search parameters, making the prophecy self-fulfilling.

Among those who praise prediction markets, this seems to be another victory of “technology changing reality.” But amid the cheers, I smell an extremely dangerous undertone.

If this logic is celebrated as “greatness,” then we may be standing at a terrifying crossroads: Do we want a market that can predict the future, or a world where capital is allowed to “customize the future”?

01
Not just prediction, but the monetization of power

There’s a classic term in economics: Soros’s reflexivity. It means participants’ biases influence the market, and the market in turn changes reality.

In traditional business ethics, we are wary of this reflexivity turning into manipulation. But in the hypothetical scenario with the Google exec, this kind of manipulation is rationalized.

It’s no longer about “who sees more accurately,” but about “who has the stronger arm.”

When someone’s bet is big enough to motivate real-world intervention, Polymarket becomes a cheat card in the hands of the rich.

It’s like on the playing field, the referee not only blows the whistle but also places a heavy bet on the home team. To win, of course, he’ll make biased calls.

If you tell me this is “greatness,” then for both business rules and social fairness, it’s a tremendous irony.

02
The closed loop of capital and the solidification of class

What really worries me isn’t the win or loss of a single bet, but the structural damage to society if this model becomes mainstream.

We often say the essence of business is value exchange. But under the logic of “profiting by manipulating reality,” business becomes a kind of rent-seeking of power.

Imagine if, in the future, outcomes are “auctioned off by capital”: the wealthy bet first, then use media, algorithms, policies, and other resources to make that outcome happen, finally reaping hundreds of times the return in the prediction market.

It’s a perfect wealth loop. In this loop, there’s no room for ordinary people to survive.

This mechanism would further concentrate power and wealth at the top of the pyramid. Those with resources would not only have the right to price the present, but even the right to define the future.

03
The dilemma of young people: is compromise the only option?

In a “reality” so powerfully distorted by capital, young people are put in an especially awkward position.

In the past, we taught young people: think independently, believe in the power of reason, and change your fate by creating value.

But in a world where a Google executive can tweak parameters to win money, the value of reason is infinitely diluted.

Young people will sadly realize: it doesn’t matter if your prediction is accurate, what matters is what the big players want to happen.

To make money, or even just to survive, young people will have to give up the pursuit of objective truth and instead try to guess the intentions of the powerful, attaching themselves to the capital forces that can “change reality.”

This is not striving; it’s submission.

When “compromising with power” becomes the only logic for survival, the innovative vitality of society will be drained, leaving only rigid hierarchies and increasingly solidified classes.

Technology should be neutral, but those who use it have their own agendas.

Polymarket itself is an incredibly innovative information tool, letting us see the price of “truth.” But we must be wary: don’t let this tool become a sickle for oligarchs to “harvest reality.”

If so-called “greatness” comes at the expense of fair play in society and burns the opportunity for ordinary people to change their destiny as fuel, then we’re better off without it.

We still long to see what the future looks like, but we hope that future happens naturally—not one that’s bought and paid for.