Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/thomas
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
I've refined my earlier take on the Polymarket vs. election polls debate by drawing the following Venn diagram. I still believe that comparing the predictive power of polls to that of Polymarket is a category error. My argument has two main prongs: 1/ Polymarket is permissionless, and thus has the potential to reflect not only the voting intentions of US voters (blue circle), but also the preferences (orange circle) and the predictions (green circle) of everyone; all three are adjacent, but distinct concepts. If these were included in a poll, they would require three different questions to capture properly. 2/ Out of every 100 humans alive today, only 4 are American, of which 3 are eligible to vote, and 2 actually turn up to vote on election day. The Polymarket population is vastly larger and more heterogeneous than just the eligible and active US voters who actually get to decide the next election. If that population was included in a poll, it would require demographic segmentation to control for properly.
5 replies
9 recasts
14 reactions
artlu đŸŽ© pfp
artlu đŸŽ©
@artlu
but isn't the argument / pitch to users as well as consumers of the results, that the contract must resolve on a resolution tied to a real-world outcome? not asking "what do you prefer as a human being" but "what do you think a subset of human beings will do within a societal framework" and that markets are complete enough to force the prices to converge to a meaningful measure for predicting results ahead of time? It kind of seems like you're saying, the noise is a feature not a bug. And I don't get it, yet.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Yes, the market ultimately resolves to a real-world outcome. But a spread / delta between the final market’s position & that actual real-world outcome remains until the moment of resolution. In other words, the convergence between predictions and outcomes is an abrupt step function at the time of resolution, instead of being gradual & smooth. For example, the last bet might be Trump 70%, & a minute later the resolution is Trump 100%. That difference comes from the fact that the bets are not 100% representative of voting intentions. The noise includes people like this French trader who was just outed as betting $45M on Trump, enough to sway the market, even though he can’t even vote (and even if he did, he could cast only one vote, not disproportionately as many). So this single market-distorting whale sits in the green circle of the Venn diagram, although he is likely exposed to different electoral information than US voters, or perhaps the orange diagram if he’s a projecting Trump maxi; or both.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction