Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
It's in the name: Prediction market. The point is to predict an outcome, insiders will naturally be better at that than non-insiders.

Though I think where things start to get a bit more insidious is when the "insiders" have access not merely to inside information, but the ability to change the outcome. That type of insider trading should be banned IMO because it works against the purpose of prediction markets as a tool. (Though the extent to which banning that is possible is debatable.)

That isn't very convincing, as the stock market itself is largely a prediction market. People buy stock to bet on future success, whether that manifest in the form of stock price increases, splits, and/or dividends. It's merely a much more narrowly-focused prediction market.

For that very reason, insider knowledge, and especially the ability to influence future outcomes, become the subject of heavy regulation. And, the lack of such regulation for congressional members is also why their net worth tends to skyrocket once entering office.

loading story #47399181
I'd argue that the "purpose" of the stock market is matching investors with companies that want liquidity. Allowing insider trading hurts the purpose by driving away non-insider trading participants, and it does not really help in any way.

With prediction markets, the "purpose" is information discovery, and "insider trading" actually helps (=> via information from insiders).

Disclaimer: I'm somewhat playing devils advocate here, I personally think that prediction markets are for now mostly an ineffective zero-sum game (and legalized gambling with all the drawbacks that brings).

> I'd argue that the "purpose" of the stock market is matching investors with companies that want liquidity.

But you don't usually buy the stocks from the company itself, do you? Unless there is some shenanigans with buyouts going on...

loading story #47402356
loading story #47399189
loading story #47399226
loading story #47398788