Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin is weighing in on a growing debate surrounding prediction markets, drawing a clear line between what he views as useful and what he considers dangerous.
The discussion unfolded after Buterin defended prediction markets as a better way to measure uncertainty than social media or even traditional financial markets. His core argument: prediction markets reward accuracy, not loud opinions.
“On social media, lots of people talk about ‘THIS WAR WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN’ and scare people,” Buterin wrote. “With prediction markets, if you make a dumb bet, you lose.”
Why Vitalik Says Prediction Markets Get a Bad Rap
Critics often argue that prediction markets could incentivize harmful behavior by allowing people to profit from disasters. Buterin pushed back, saying those risks already exist, and at much larger scale, in traditional markets.
“Many of the downsides of PMs are replicated by regular stock markets,” he said, noting that equities and other financial instruments offer far more liquidity for anyone trying to profit from chaos.
In contrast, prediction markets force people to back their beliefs with money. Over time, wrong views get filtered out. Prices reflect probabilities, not certainty – something Buterin says helps him personally stay calm when headlines turn sensational.
Will Markets Shape Reality?
The debate intensified after a user suggested that highly liquid prediction markets could eventually stop predicting outcomes and start shaping them. With enough capital, they argued, markets could “program reality to follow the market.”
Buterin didn’t agree and said that future worries him.
“I actually consider that one of the danger cases,” he responded.
Where Vitalik Draws the Line
According to Buterin, markets that shape reality tend to benefit large players over small ones. Governments, corporations, and whales can move outcomes, but regular users can’t. That imbalance already exists in traditional finance, and it’s often harmful.
Prediction markets, he argued, are safer precisely because they’re smaller.
Their size limits their influence. Prices stay bounded between 0 and 1, reducing bubbles, manipulation, and “greater fool” dynamics.
“They are much less dominated by reflexivity effects,” he said, calling them “healthier” than regular markets.
Trust with CoinPedia:
CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.
Investment Disclaimer:
All opinions and insights shared represent the author’s own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.
Sponsored and Advertisements:
Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.
