Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum co-founder, revealed through a series of posts on Farcaster that he believes prediction markets are the antidote to crazy opinions. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin debated about the ethics of prediction markets, arguing they are an important counterbalance to misinformation on social media platforms. Can betting on Polymarket become a moral problem? In a series of posts on Farcaster, Buterin responded to critics who questioned whether betting on tragic events like wars and deaths represents a moral failing of the cryptocurrency industry. The discussion began when a user named Cassie criticized the practice of “gambling on whether a bunch of people are going to die,” calling it one of the reasons the crypto industry faces widespread hatred. Buterin countered by explaining that small-scale prediction markets focused on large events don’t create dangerous incentives for individuals to cause harm. He also pointed out that traditional stock markets carry similar risks. Unlike other social media platforms where sensational claims generate engagement without accountability, Buterin says prediction markets are truth-seeking environments. “Prediction markets as an antidote for crazy opinions on emotionally charged topics,” he wrote. Buterin’s point, in summary, is that, on social media, users can make dramatic predictions about wars or disasters without facing consequences if they turn out to be wrong. Mainstream media use sensational headlines that distort public perception of actual risks. Buterin shared personal examples of checking Polymarket prices after reading alarming news headlines, only to discover that experienced participants still place the probability of that outcome at just 4%. He argued that prediction markets experience less manipulation from reflexivity effects, “greater fool theory” dynamics, and pump-and-dump schemes that plague cryptocurrency and stock trading because their prices are bounded between zero and one, representing 0% to 100% probability. Can betting on prediction markets cross a line? Cassie questioned whether markets predicting someone’s death might actually influence outcomes rather than simply following information, asking directly if Buterin was “okay with that.” “Yeah, that’s an assassination market. I oppose those.” Buterin responded. He went on to list several measures that prevent such markets from functioning effectively, including supporting “social norms that weaken oracles to make such markets break more.” As examples, he referenced Augur’s historical “vote unethical” design feature, which allowed participants to invalidate markets deemed inappropriate. Buterin suggested that journalistic standards play a role by avoiding publishing details of death that make such markets easy to resolve. He proposed that if assassination markets became a bigger problem, making it simple for people to fake their deaths temporarily and claim rewards themselves could help break the incentive structure. This is not the first time Buterin has defended the right to wager on events via prediction markets like Polymarket. Last year, as reported by Cryptopolitan , he shared similar thoughts about the moral and ethical questions surrounding certain markets, referencing the Israel-Hezbollah war at the time. Get $50 free to trade crypto when you sign up to Bybit now
