Hubbry Logo
PredictItPredictItMain
Open search
PredictIt
Community hub
PredictIt
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
PredictIt
PredictIt
PredictIt
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

PredictIt is a New Zealand-based online prediction market that offers exchanges on political and financial events.[1] PredictIt is owned and operated by Victoria University of Wellington[2] with support from Aristotle, Inc.[3] The company's office is located in Washington, D.C.[4] Only United States citizens can bet on the site.[citation needed]

Key Information

The market was initially launched on 3 November 2014.[1][4]

History

[edit]

PredictIt was first launched on 3 November 2014.[1] By March 2016, the website had approximately 29,000 active traders.[5] By 2025, PredictIt had 400,000 active users.[6]

During the 2016 United States elections, PredictIt, along with other prediction market websites, received attention from various media outlets.[5][7][8]

Regulation

[edit]

To launch the site, the nonprofit educational project of the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, "had to work around federal laws that prohibit online gambling and govern commodity futures trading."[9] To this end, Victoria University of Wellington secured a no-action letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),[10] eliminating the risk of prosecution for illegal online gambling.[11] In order to secure the no-action letter, each question was limited to 5,000 traders, and there was an $850 cap on individual investments per question.[2] These restrictions were modeled after the Iowa Electronic Markets, which previously secured a no-action letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.[11] However, there were differences in the restrictions between the two markets.[10]

On 4 August 2022, the CFTC announced that Victoria University has not operated PredictIt in compliance with the terms of the no-action letter and as a result the no-action letter had been withdrawn. The CFTC stated that all related and remaining listed contracts and positions on PredictIt should be closed out and/or liquidated no later than 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on 15 February 2023.[12] In September 2022, PredictIt and Aristotle International filed suit against the CFTC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to block the action.[13][non-primary source needed] On 26 January 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary injunction allowing PredictIt to continue operating while the court considered further term relief for the organization.[14][non-primary source needed] In July 2025, PredictIt won its lawsuit against the CFTC.[15]

In September 2025, PredictIt received full regulatory approval from the CFTC to operate as a designated contract market (DCM) and derivatives clearing organization (DCO).[6][16] The company is expected to launch a new, expanded prediction market in late 2025.[6]

Trading format

[edit]

PredictIt uses a continuous double auction to sell shares for each event in its markets, meaning that for every person who predicts that an event will take place, there must be another person who predicts that it will not. The site groups related predictions into a market.[17] Operating expenses are covered by charging a fee of 10% on earnings in excess of the original investment and by charging an additional 5% withdrawal fee.[18] PredictIt has many different categories of markets including questions about the Biden administration,[19] U.S. elections,[20] Congress,[21] state/local elections,[22] and world.[23] Questions vary from asking which political party will win certain elections, which candidate will win, what the margin of victory for the winner will be, and even what the results of future polls on RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight will be.[24]

Data-sharing program

[edit]

PredictIt offers a data sharing program for members of the academic community. PredictIt has over 160 data partners, including researchers affiliated with Duke University, Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Oklahoma State University, the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, and Yale University.[25]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

PredictIt

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

PredictIt is an online real-money platform that enables users to trade shares in contracts tied to the outcomes of political, economic, and other events, with share prices fluctuating between 1¢ and 99¢ to reflect market-implied probabilities. Operated initially as an academic research project by New Zealand's and managed by U.S.-based Inc., it functions as a non-profit venture designed to aggregate for forecasting purposes. Launched in 2014 under a U.S. (CFTC) no-action letter permitting limited operations without full registration, PredictIt quickly became a key reference for election odds and political analysis, offering markets on topics such as presidential winners, congressional control, and policy developments. The platform's binary yes/no contracts and trading mechanics incentivize participants to buy low (undervalued probabilities) or sell high, theoretically distilling diverse information into efficient predictions superior to opinion polls in some empirical assessments. However, regulatory caps restricted individual investments to $850 per market and imposed fees, constraining liquidity and scale compared to unregulated alternatives. PredictIt's defining controversies centered on CFTC enforcement, as the agency revoked the 2014 relief in 2022, citing non-compliance with caps, excessive fees, and non-academic operations, prompting a mandated wind-down and subsequent federal lawsuit. In July 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled in PredictIt's favor, invalidating the CFTC's closure attempts and enabling a relaunch as a licensed derivatives exchange with expanded limits and potential new markets like sports. This resolution underscores ongoing tensions between prediction markets' informational value and federal oversight of event contracts as potential gaming instruments.

History

Founding and Initial Launch

PredictIt was established in 2014 as a nonprofit academic research project spearheaded by in , in partnership with Aristotle International, Inc., a U.S.-based political technology firm. The initiative was founded by , CEO of Aristotle Inc., who sought to extend research beyond New Zealand's existing iPredict platform to U.S. users, focusing on the predictive accuracy of markets for political and economic events. This effort was framed as an educational tool to study crowd-sourced forecasting, with trading limited to advance academic objectives rather than commercial profit. The platform's development relied on a no-action letter from the U.S. (CFTC), issued on October 29, 2014, which permitted Victoria University to operate a limited real-money for research purposes without full regulatory compliance as a designated contract market. This exemption capped individual investments at $850 per market and total trader fees at $850, ensuring the operation remained experimental and non-commercial. PredictIt launched publicly on November 3, 2014, initially offering contracts on U.S. political outcomes, such as election results, to gather data on market efficiency and aggregation. At inception, PredictIt functioned under the oversight of the Prediction Market Research Consortium, a not-for-profit entity supporting the university's goals, with handling U.S. operations and technical infrastructure. Early markets emphasized binary yes/no s resolving to $0.01 or $0.99 per share based on event outcomes, drawing initial participation from academics, traders, and political analysts interested in its potential as a mechanism superior to traditional polling. The launch marked the first CFTC-sanctioned event platform for non-institutional users, positioning PredictIt as a bridge between academic inquiry and practical market testing amid longstanding U.S. restrictions on markets.

Growth and Operational Expansion

PredictIt demonstrated steady user growth in its early years. Launched on November 3, 2014, the platform attracted approximately 22,000 traders by 2016, expanding to 80,000 active users by March 2018 amid rising interest in political prediction markets. This expansion coincided with broader adoption during U.S. election cycles, where trading activity intensified as participants sought to forecast outcomes on congressional races, primaries, and presidential contests. Growth accelerated notably during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, positioning PredictIt as a prominent venue for political betting with heightened visibility and participation. By 2025, the platform had scaled to over 400,000 active users, reflecting sustained demand despite prior regulatory constraints on scale. Operational enhancements included proliferating market offerings, with the site hosting up to 126 active contracts at peak periods, primarily centered on U.S. politics such as presidential nominees, cabinet appointments, and local elections. Regulatory resolutions in 2025 marked a pivotal phase of operational expansion. In July 2025, a new agreement with the (CFTC) eliminated caps on total users, enabling unlimited participation, and raised per-market position limits from $850 to $3,500, thereby boosting liquidity and accessibility. These changes facilitated a platform relaunch in October 2025, with promises of new market categories beyond traditional politics, though specifics remained pending regulatory alignment. Such upgrades addressed longstanding limitations, allowing PredictIt to compete more effectively in the landscape.

Regulatory Pressures and Litigation

On August 4, 2022, the U.S. Futures Trading Commission's Division of Market Oversight withdrew the 2014 no-action letter (CFTC Letter 14-130) that had allowed PredictIt to operate as a limited academic event contracts market, citing multiple violations of its conditions. The CFTC determined that PredictIt had exceeded the 5,000-trader cap by attracting over participants, imposed transaction fees of 5% on purchases and 10% on that yielded approximately $2.6 million in net revenue for its commercial operators— International and Aristotle Superforecasting, LLC—rather than limiting collections to cost recovery for a non-profit educational endeavor, and listed hundreds of contracts far beyond the contemplated research scope. These actions, the agency argued, transformed PredictIt into an unregistered swap execution facility under the Exchange Act, which prohibits event contracts resembling gaming or wagering. The withdrawal mandated cessation of new contract trading after , 2023, prompting PredictIt to challenge the decision as an abrupt reversal after eight years of tolerated operations that provided valuable public forecasting data. On September 9, 2022, individual traders and PredictIt-affiliated entities filed Clarke v. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of (Case No. 1:22-cv-00909), alleging the 's move was arbitrary, capricious, and procedurally flawed under the , lacking reasoned explanation for ignoring PredictIt's compliance efforts and the market's non-speculative, binary-outcome structure. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary to halt enforcement, emphasizing potential harm to traders' investments and the platform's role in aggregating probabilistic insights superior to traditional polls. The district court issued a temporary in late , followed by a preliminary in early 2023 that preserved PredictIt's operations during litigation, later transferred to the District of Columbia. Appeals reached the Fifth Circuit, which in July 2023 ruled that the CFTC's handling of no-action relief implicated concerns, vacating aspects of the revocation for inadequate justification and reinforcing that such letters bind agencies absent material changes. The dispute underscored broader regulatory ambiguities around markets, with the CFTC viewing them as prone to manipulation absent full oversight, while PredictIt contended the agency's stance stifled without evidence of harm.

Recent Resolutions and Approvals

In July 2025, PredictIt reached a settlement resolving its multi-year litigation with the (CFTC), which stemmed from the agency's 2022 revocation of a prior no-action letter permitting limited operations. The agreement, announced on July 23, 2025, included the CFTC's amendment of its no-action relief via Letter 25-20 on July 14, 2025, facilitating a leadership transition to a U.S.-based led by International while maintaining operational continuity. This resolution vacated certain restrictive CFTC orders and enabled PredictIt to expand beyond prior caps, including raising the per-contract trading limit from $850 to $3,500—aligned with federal campaign contribution limits—and eliminating the 5,000-trader cap to allow unlimited participants. A ruling on July 31, 2025, further supported PredictIt by deeming aspects of the CFTC's prior enforcement actions arbitrary and capricious, reinforcing the platform's ability to offer event contracts without immediate liquidation mandates. These developments marked a shift from regulatory constraints imposed since 2022, which had limited market volume and trader access, toward a framework permitting broader political and event-based trading under enhanced compliance measures. By September 5, 2025, the CFTC granted full regulatory approval for PredictIt's operator, , to function as a designated market (DCM) and derivatives clearing organization, authorizing a licensed exchange with expanded offerings, including potential non-political events like sports outcomes, subject to ongoing oversight. This licensing, confirmed in subsequent announcements, positioned PredictIt for a relaunch in October 2025 with improved clearing infrastructure and no reliance on the prior no-action relief, addressing long-standing criticisms of operational restrictions that had hindered its forecasting utility. The approvals reflected the CFTC's evolving stance on event , prioritizing market integrity over blanket prohibitions, though they retained prohibitions on certain speculative or manipulative practices.

Platform Mechanics

Market Contracts and Trading Format

PredictIt markets feature event s that resolve based on verifiable outcomes of political, economic, or other specified events. Each trades in the form of shares, with s ranging from $0.01 to $0.99, where the directly corresponds to the market's collective assessment of the event's probability—for instance, a Yes share priced at $0.72 implies a 72% likelihood of the event occurring. Participants engage in continuous trading by submitting buy or sell orders for shares via the platform's web interface, with matched trades executed at the prevailing market determined by dynamics. Trading is restricted to the platform, prohibiting off-site agreements, and individual positions are capped at $3,500 per to align with its research-oriented designation under regulatory allowances. Contracts primarily adopt a binary format for straightforward yes/no questions, such as "Will X win the ?" In these markets, Yes shares pay out $1 if the event occurs (with No shares forfeiting value), while No shares pay $1 if it does not (rendering Yes shares worthless). For multi-outcome scenarios, like selecting among multiple or policy options, the market structures separate Yes contracts for each possible resolution, which are mutually exclusive—only the shares corresponding to the actual outcome redeem at $1 upon resolution, with all others expiring at $0. This format ensures comprehensive coverage of event probabilities, as the sum of prices across contracts in multi-outcome markets approximates 100%, adjusted for trading fees and . Markets close at a predetermined date and time tied to the event's resolution criteria, after which PredictIt—or a designated provider—determines the official outcome using predefined rules, such as official results or authoritative sources. Payouts are automatically credited to participants' ledgers for winning shares, with no further trading permitted post-closure; unresolved disputes or ties follow explicit protocols, like alphabetical ordering of contract names. A 5% applies to share sales before resolution, incentivizing holding strategies, while the platform maintains a minimum $10 account balance for trading eligibility. This structure facilitates through incentivized trading rather than traditional polling.

Participant Rules and Limitations

Participation in PredictIt is restricted to individuals who are at least 18 years of age and qualify as U.S. persons, defined under relevant regulations to include U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and certain other entities or individuals with significant U.S. connections. Non-U.S. persons are ineligible, reflecting the platform's operation under U.S. (CFTC) oversight as a domestic and educational facility rather than a commercial enterprise. Participants must maintain a single account per person, with prohibitions against multiple accounts, shared access, or use by proxies to circumvent rules. To establish eligibility, users undergo identity verification provided by third-party services, submitting documents such as a , , or other government-issued identification to confirm age, identity, and U.S. person status. This know-your-customer (KYC) process aligns with CFTC requirements for anti-money laundering compliance and prevents underage or unauthorized participation, though it does not involve biometric data beyond standard document review unless specified in updates. Trading limitations per participant include a maximum position size of $3,500 in any single , calculated based on the cost of shares held (typically priced between 1 and 99 cents, representing implied probabilities). This cap, increased from a prior $850 limit via a July 2025 CFTC agreement, applies separately to "Yes" and "No" shares within the same market, allowing participants to hold opposing positions but subjecting each to the limit. Aggregate exposure across all markets is not capped beyond individual limits, though platform-wide rules prohibit manipulative trading, such as wash sales or coordinated efforts to influence prices. Following the 2025 regulatory updates, the prior restriction of 5,000 traders per market has been lifted, enabling unlimited participant numbers while preserving per-user constraints to maintain the non-commercial, experimental nature of the markets.

Fees, Payouts, and Risk Management

PredictIt assesses fees on realized profits from trading contracts, deducting 10% of net earnings when shares are sold for a gain or redeemed at market resolution. For example, purchasing a "Yes" share for $0.50 that resolves to a win yields $1.00, but after the 10% on the $0.50 profit, the trader receives $0.95 net. Deposits into accounts incur no fees, preserving principal accessibility without upfront costs. Withdrawals from the platform are subject to a 5% processing applied to the total amount requested, plus any method-specific charges, following a 30-day holding period after the initial deposit to deter short-term . This structure, combined with an inactive account of $2.00 monthly after 12 months of dormancy, incentivizes active participation while generating revenue for operations. Payouts occur automatically upon market resolution, as determined by predefined rules on each contract's page; winning "Yes" contracts credit $1.00 per share to the trader's ledger before profit-based deductions, while "No" shares yield $0.00. To manage and comply with its experimental research framework under (CFTC) oversight, PredictIt enforces position limits capping individual exposure at $3,500 per contract series, preventing concentrated bets that could distort prices or overwhelm liquidity. These limits, expanded from prior $850 caps via a July 2025 CFTC agreement, alongside the removal of the 5,000-trader cap, balance risk mitigation with broader participation without introducing automated market makers or liquidity guarantees. Traders thus face counterparty and liquidity risks inherent to a limit-order book system, where thin order books may lead to wide bid-ask spreads or execution failures, particularly in low-volume markets, with no platform intervention to ensure trades. The clearing house holds funds in trust but limits liability to account balances, exposing participants to potential losses from operational disruptions or unresolved disputes resolved at the provider's discretion.

Regulatory History

CFTC No-Action Letter and Early Oversight

In October 2014, the Futures Trading Commission's Division of Market Oversight issued Letter No. 14-130 to , the initial operator of PredictIt, providing a no-action position regarding the offer and sale of binary event contracts on the platform to U.S.-based participants. This relief meant CFTC staff would refrain from recommending enforcement actions against the university or its affiliates, provided the market adhered to specified conditions designed to limit its scale and scope as a non-commercial, academic research tool rather than a full-fledged exchange. The letter classified PredictIt's contracts—primarily yes/no outcomes on political events like elections—as not requiring registration under the Exchange Act, enabling limited U.S. access without designating it as a regulated contract market. Key conditions included capping participation at no more than 5,000 traders, restricting individual positions to $850 per event question, and limiting fees to those necessary for operational and compliance costs, with any surplus directed to academic research. Contracts were confined to narrow submarkets, such as U.S. congressional and presidential elections, with requirements for robust anti-manipulation measures, real-time data reporting to the CFTC upon request, and adherence to know-your-customer and anti-money laundering protocols. These stipulations reflected the CFTC's intent to permit experimental event contracts for informational purposes while mitigating risks of or gambling-like activity, positioning PredictIt as an educational venture rather than a profit-driven entity. Early oversight under the letter involved ongoing compliance monitoring by the CFTC, including periodic reviews of trading data, fee structures, and contract adherence, though it did not impose the full supervisory regime of a licensed exchange. The was required to notify the CFTC of material changes and provide access to records, fostering a light-touch regulatory framework that allowed PredictIt to launch U.S. operations in November 2014 while gathering empirical data on prediction markets' forecasting utility. This arrangement persisted without major enforcement until later scrutiny, enabling the platform's growth as a research-oriented tool under constrained parameters. In August 2022, the Futures Trading Commission's Division of Market Oversight withdrew the 2014 no-action letter granted to , determining that the university had failed to operate PredictIt in compliance with its specified terms, which were intended to limit the platform primarily to academic and research purposes. The withdrawal took effect immediately and directed PredictIt to halt the listing of new or related event contracts, while requiring the closure or liquidation of all existing positions by February 15, 2023. This regulatory step effectively amounted to an enforcement directive to wind down U.S. operations, escalating prior compliance disputes that had prompted amendments to the no-action relief following a 2021 civil action where the CFTC alleged unregistered trading of swaps and event contracts in violation of the Exchange Act. The withdrawal triggered immediate legal challenges from PredictIt and affected traders. In September 2022, a group of users led by Kevin Clarke, along with PredictIt and Aristotle International, filed suit against the CFTC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of (Clarke v. CFTC), arguing that the agency's unilateral rescission exceeded its authority, violated , and disregarded the letter's non-binding nature as mere staff guidance rather than an enforceable regulation. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary in late 2022, prompting an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On July 21, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's ruling and remanded with instructions to enter the preliminary injunction, deeming the CFTC's actions arbitrary and capricious under the . The appellate court emphasized that no-action letters represent discretionary staff decisions not to recommend , lacking the force of or binding commitments that would justify retroactive revocation without adequate explanation or opportunity for reliance interests to be considered. This decision preserved PredictIt's operations pending further proceedings, underscoring broader debates over the CFTC's interpretive authority over event contracts and the balance between investor protection and fostering informational markets.

2025 Litigation Resolution and Full Licensing

In July 2025, PredictIt reached a settlement with the (CFTC) resolving ongoing litigation stemming from the agency's 2022 enforcement action, which had alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act due to exceeding caps on trader numbers and investment limits under a prior no-action letter. The agreement, announced on July 23, permitted PredictIt to transition leadership to a of backers, amend the no-action letter to remove the 5,000-trader cap and quadruple the per-trader investment limit from $850 to $3,400, and expand offerings beyond strictly political events while maintaining compliance oversight. This resolution followed a federal court ruling on July 23 favoring PredictIt on key claims, though the judge denied requests for additional relief such as litigation costs. Building on the settlement, PredictIt—rebranded under Aristotle Exchange DCM, Inc.—secured full CFTC approval on September 5, 2025, to operate as a Designated Contract Market (DCM) and Derivatives Clearing Organization (DCO), enabling it to function as a fully regulated U.S. prediction market exchange without prior experimental constraints. The approvals authorized clearing of event contracts, expanded trader participation, higher position limits, and broader market categories including potential non-political events, with the platform relaunching for trading in October 2025. This marked a shift from PredictIt's university-affiliated research model to a commercial derivatives entity, addressing long-standing regulatory hurdles that had limited its scale since inception. The CFTC's determinations emphasized robust risk management and compliance frameworks as prerequisites for the licenses.

Predictive Accuracy and Forecasting Impact

Empirical Comparisons to Polls and Models

Empirical studies comparing probabilities from platforms like PredictIt to opinion polls and statistical forecasting models have yielded mixed results, with markets often demonstrating competitive or superior aggregation of dispersed information due to financial incentives for accuracy. One long-term analysis of U.S. presidential elections from 1988 to 2004 found that forecasts were closer to actual vote shares than contemporaneous polls in 74% of 964 pairwise comparisons, attributing this edge to markets' ability to incorporate real-time updates and penalize through trading losses. This advantage stems from participants' skin-in-the-game, contrasting with polls' reliance on self-reported intentions, which can suffer from non-response bias, social desirability effects, and sampling errors. Specific evaluations of PredictIt highlight both strengths and limitations influenced by its regulatory caps on trading volume (historically $850 per per user), which constrain liquidity and can amplify noise from low-volume trades or manipulation attempts to unrestricted models like FiveThirtyEight's poll-weighted simulations. For the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, a detailed of PredictIt prices against national polls showed markets providing earlier signals of Joe Biden's surge post-Super Tuesday (March 3, 2020), with probabilities aligning more closely to final delegate outcomes than average polling margins, though markets lagged in volatile early stages due to thin trading. In the general 2020 presidential race, PredictIt's state-level probabilities yielded Brier scores competitive with FiveThirtyEight's model in battlegrounds like and , but underperformed in low-probability scenarios without adjustments for outlier events, reflecting markets' occasional overconfidence in consensus narratives. PredictIt's record against polls faltered in the 2022 midterm elections, where market odds systematically underestimated Republican House gains (actual +9 seats vs. implied expectations near even or Democratic holds), performing worse than aggregated polls from sources like RealClearPolitics due to insufficient volume to correct for polling underestimation of GOP enthusiasm. Conversely, in the 2024 presidential election, PredictIt probabilities tracked shifts toward Donald Trump in swing states more responsively than many polls, which averaged a 2-3% overestimate of Kamala Harris's support; post-election analyses confirmed betting markets' edge in probabilistic forecasts, though PredictIt's caps likely muted efficiency relative to higher-volume alternatives. Overall, while PredictIt has not consistently outperformed sophisticated models like FiveThirtyEight's in Brier score metrics across all cycles, its real-money mechanism provides causal insights into voter sentiment less prone to the ideological sampling biases observed in academic and media-conducted polls.

Key Successes in Election Predictions

PredictIt markets demonstrated strong forecasting performance in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, where traders priced Joe Biden's victory at 94¢ per share on November 2, 2020, reflecting a high-confidence consensus that resolved correctly. State-level contracts on battleground swing states, such as and , also aligned closely with final results, with market prices indicating narrow Democratic wins that matched certified outcomes, surpassing the accuracy of some aggregated polls that underestimated turnout dynamics. In the 2022 midterm elections, PredictIt accurately anticipated the Republican capture of the U.S. , with GOP control contracts trading above 70¢ in the final weeks, capturing voter dissatisfaction overlooked by certain polling models. The platform's markets likewise correctly priced a Democratic hold, with probabilities stabilizing around 55-60% for Democrats despite volatile national surveys, as key races in Georgia and resolved per trader expectations. For the 2024 presidential election, PredictIt shifted toward Donald Trump as the favored candidate by mid-October, with his shares exceeding 55¢ amid tightening polls, a trajectory that proved prescient as Trump secured the Electoral College victory. This contrasted with polling averages showing a closer race, highlighting the market's sensitivity to late-breaking momentum in battleground states. Empirical analyses of PredictIt data from the 2020 Democratic primaries further support its edge, where adjusted market probabilities outperformed raw polls in forecasting nominee viability, yielding lower error rates in probability estimates.

Criticisms of Reliability and Failures

PredictIt has faced criticism for structural limitations that undermine the reliability of its market prices as accurate forecasts. The platform imposes a strict $850 position limit per contract, which restricts informed traders from fully arbitraging mispricings and results in thin trading volumes that fail to efficiently aggregate information. Low liquidity exacerbates this, as small trades—sometimes just thousands of dollars—can shift by several percentage points, with bid-ask spreads occasionally reaching 50%, making prices susceptible to noise rather than reflecting true probabilities. These constraints, combined with transaction fees up to 10% on profits, diminish incentives for deep research and correction of errors, leading analysts to argue that PredictIt's prices often span a wide range of plausible outcomes without converging on the correct one. Empirical failures in high-profile elections illustrate these reliability issues. In the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, PredictIt markets projected 77% to 86% odds for Republican control of the , yet Democrats retained the chamber after key races in , Georgia, and defied expectations. For instance, 's market heavily favored the Republican candidate until late results reversed it, while Georgia's odds flipped from 65% Republican post-voting to a Democratic runoff reality. Critics attribute such divergences to markets amplifying trader sentiment biases over objective signals, functioning more as contrarian indicators than precise predictors, especially in low-volume "hard call" races where trading was 28 times higher than in safe states but still insufficient for efficiency. Earlier cycles revealed similar shortcomings, with PredictIt's prices exhibiting unusual stability despite major news events, such as scandals or shifting polls during the 2016 presidential race, due to feedback loops where traders anchor to existing odds rather than updating aggressively. Analysis of 2020 U.S. presidential markets uncovered persistent pricing anomalies, including exploitable inefficiencies where correlated contracts (e.g., state-level vs. national outcomes) failed to align, allowing arbitrage opportunities that persisted unresolved, signaling incomplete information incorporation. These patterns suggest that while PredictIt can occasionally outperform polls in specific contexts, its regulatory caps and participant dynamics often produce forecasts vulnerable to distortion, prompting skepticism about its superiority as a forecasting tool.

Research Applications and Broader Influence

Data-Sharing Programs and Academic Use

PredictIt operates a data-sharing program that provides free access to its anonymized for academic and non-commercial purposes, facilitating studies in fields such as , , and . Researchers affiliated with universities and organizations worldwide can apply to become data partners by contacting [email protected], with approval granted to those demonstrating legitimate scholarly intent. This initiative, aligned with PredictIt's origins as an experimental project of the —a U.S.-based not-for-profit entity focused on educational applications—emphasizes the platform's role in generating empirical data on crowd-sourced predictions. The program has established partnerships with over 125 academic institutions globally, including universities across the and internationally, enabling analyses of market dynamics, information aggregation, and predictive accuracy. For instance, researchers have utilized the data to examine trading behaviors, effects, and the comparative efficacy of prediction markets versus traditional polling in electoral outcomes. Access is restricted to anonymized datasets to protect user , excluding individual trader identities while preserving granular volumes, prices, and resolution outcomes. This academic collaboration underscores PredictIt's foundational exemption under no-action relief, which permitted operations as a tool rather than a commercial exchange until regulatory expansions in 2025. By distributing data to verified partners, the platform has supported peer-reviewed publications on topics like resilience and incentive alignment in , contributing to broader validations of prediction markets' informational over subjective opinions or surveys. Such efforts highlight causal links between financial incentives and probabilistic accuracy, with studies often finding markets outperforming polls in aggregating dispersed under controlled constraints.

Role in Public Discourse and Policy Insights

PredictIt has contributed to public discourse by providing market-derived probabilities for political outcomes, which frequently serve as a to traditional opinion polls and expert analyses reported in . These probabilities, aggregated from trader bets, have demonstrated higher accuracy in forecasting U.S. results compared to polls, as evidenced by systematic outperformance in like the 2016 and 2020 presidential races. Media outlets increasingly reference PredictIt odds to contextualize narratives, such as during the 2022 midterms when market prices signaled tighter races than some poll averages suggested, prompting discussions on and swing-state dynamics. This integration fosters a data-driven , where discrepancies between market odds and media predictions highlight potential biases in polling methodologies or interpretive frameworks. In terms of policy insights, PredictIt markets extend beyond elections to contract resolutions tied to legislative actions, such as the passage of specific bills or , offering real-time indicators of perceived policy feasibility. For example, markets on outcomes like congressional confirmation votes or budget resolutions have reflected trader assessments of partisan gridlock, with prices adjusting in response to committee hearings and floor debates as early as 2018. These dynamics provide policymakers and analysts with incentivized forecasts that incorporate dispersed , potentially superior to surveys due to traders' financial skin in the game. indicates such markets can reveal underlying opinion dynamics and reduce uncertainty in policy , though adoption in formal remains limited, partly due to regulatory constraints on event contracts. Proponents argue this mechanism enhances causal understanding of policy drivers by pricing in probabilistic scenarios, as seen in markets anticipating shifts from events like the 2022 negotiations.

Economic and Incentive Mechanisms

PredictIt operates binary prediction markets where participants shares representing "yes" or "no" outcomes for specific events, primarily political ones. Each share trades at prices between 1 cent and 99 cents, with the price directly corresponding to the collective market assessment of the event's probability; for instance, a 60-cent "yes" share implies a 60% perceived likelihood. At resolution, winning shares redeem for $1, while losing shares are worthless, creating a zero-sum structure that incentivizes traders to buy undervalued shares (betting on higher-than-market probabilities) or sell overvalued ones, fostering through and informed trading. The core incentive mechanism relies on real-money stakes, where accurate predictions yield profits via capital appreciation or full redemption, while errors result in total loss of in that position. This skin-in-the-game dynamic theoretically encourages participants to incorporate private information into trades, as uninformed or biased betting erodes capital over time, promoting market efficiency through continuous revelation and aggregation of dispersed knowledge. Empirical studies of markets, including those akin to PredictIt, demonstrate that such monetary incentives outperform non-incentivized forecasts by aligning participant motivations with truthful signaling, though constraints can dampen responsiveness. Trading incurs a 10% on realized profits—calculated as the excess return above purchase price upon sale or resolution—with no fees on losses, which reduces net returns but preserves incentives to trade only on high-confidence edges. An additional 5% applies to withdrawals, further structuring incentives toward long-term holding over frequent cash-outs. These costs, combined with platform-imposed limits of $850 maximum per trader per market (enforced via CFTC no-action to classify operations as non-commercial ), constrain position sizes and total , potentially limiting incentives for large-scale arbitrageurs while broadening participation among small-stakes retail traders. The $850 per market, applied individually rather than aggregately, segments across multiple related markets, allowing diversified exposure but fragmenting and reducing the marginal for deep informational trades compared to uncapped exchanges. This regulatory boundary, intended to mitigate speculative excess, has been critiqued for distorting efficient by excluding institutional capital, though it sustains broad retail engagement and real-money discipline absent in play-money alternatives. Overall, PredictIt's mechanisms prioritize incentivized accuracy over unrestricted scale, yielding probabilities that often converge toward empirical outcomes through iterative trading.

Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Manipulation and Market Distortions

PredictIt's regulatory-imposed position limits, initially capped at $850 per trader per , have been criticized for preventing sufficiently large bets by informed traders, thereby allowing from smaller, less knowledgeable participants to distort market prices. These limits hinder the aggregation of information, as arbitrageurs cannot fully exploit mispricings, leading to persistent inefficiencies compared to less restricted platforms like the Electronic Markets (IEM). In the 2016 U.S. presidential election markets, PredictIt contracts exhibited chronic relative to IEM, with opportunities for substantial profits due to these constraints and platform fees, including a 10% commission on net winnings and 5% withdrawal fees that further eroded incentives for efficient trading. Similar exploitable anomalies persisted in the 2020 election markets, where low amplified distortions from thin trading volumes and wide bid-ask spreads, such as buying shares at 40 cents while selling at 39 cents in some contracts. Allegations of manipulation have centered on informational tactics rather than large-scale trade-based schemes, given the caps' role in limiting volume. For instance, during the 2020 cycle, some PredictIt participants reportedly generated and disseminated fake polls to mislead other forecasters and influence prices, exemplifying how markets for can incentivize deceptive strategies in low-stakes environments. Critics argue these structural features—exacerbated by CFTC no-action relief conditions—undermine PredictIt's reliability as a truth-tracking mechanism, though direct evidence of widespread trade manipulation remains scarce due to the platform's design.

Regulatory Overreach and Free Market Debates

In 2014, the (CFTC) issued a no-action letter to PredictIt, permitting its operation as a nonprofit academic research project focused on political event contracts, subject to strict limits including a $850 cap per contract per trader and a 5% fee cap on earnings to minimize commercial aspects. These conditions were intended to classify PredictIt outside full derivatives regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act, allowing capped trading for informational rather than speculative purposes. By 2021, the CFTC alleged PredictIt exceeded the no-action letter's scope through undisclosed fees totaling over $2.2 million and trader volumes surpassing academic thresholds, prompting enforcement action in October 2021 to halt unauthorized event contracts. In August 2022, CFTC staff revoked the letter and ordered cessation of operations within six months, citing violations that transformed the platform into an unregistered exchange promoting gambling-like activity. Critics, including market participants, viewed this as abrupt regulatory expansion, arguing the agency retroactively penalized success without formal , effectively punishing PredictIt's demonstrated forecasting utility. PredictIt and affected traders challenged the CFTC in federal court, securing preliminary injunctions; in May 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals barred the agency from enforcing closure or deterring political contracts, deeming the revocation arbitrary and capricious for lacking . Further victories followed: a July 2025 district court ruling invalidated prior CFTC justifications for termination, leading to a settlement allowing continued operations under amended no-action . By 2025, the CFTC approved PredictIt as a regulated designated market, enabling expanded trading without nonprofit constraints, though ongoing caps persisted amid debates over their necessity. Free market advocates contend CFTC oversight exemplifies overreach, imposing paternalistic barriers that stifle prediction markets' superior information aggregation compared to polls, as uncapped trading would enhance liquidity and accuracy without inherent instability. They argue event contracts differ from traditional derivatives by resolving on binary public outcomes, self-policed via arbitrage incentives, and that caps—rooted in anti-gambling concerns—artificially suppress volumes, distorting prices and limiting societal benefits like policy foresight. Proponents of regulation, including CFTC officials, counter that unchecked markets risk manipulation, retail harm, and systemic spillovers, necessitating preemptive controls under existing statutes, though court setbacks highlight procedural flaws in enforcement. This tension underscores broader ideological clashes: libertarian views favoring deregulation to unleash market discipline versus interventionist stances prioritizing consumer protection and market integrity.

Ideological and Accessibility Concerns

PredictIt limits participation to U.S. persons aged 18 or older, defined as citizens, resident aliens, or certain entities under U.S. , with mandatory identity verification to adhere to (CFTC) oversight as an event contract market rather than a or vehicle. These geographic and age restrictions exclude non-U.S. residents and minors, narrowing the participant pool to approximately 5,000 traders prior to regulatory changes, which critics argue reduces viewpoint diversity and exposes markets to domestic demographic skews. Following a July 2025 settlement resolving litigation with the CFTC, PredictIt raised the per-contract cap from $850 to $3,500—aligned with federal individual campaign contribution limits—and eliminated the total trader limit, aiming to enhance while maintaining compliance. Despite these expansions, ongoing constraints such as a 5% withdrawal , a 30-day holding period on deposited funds, and prohibitions on commercial trading or off-platform coordination continue to deter high-volume or institutional participants, fostering an amateur-heavy user base that prioritizes low-stakes over . Such barriers, rooted in CFTC interpretations of event contracts as non-speculative tools for research, have drawn criticism for artificially suppressing and compared to unregulated offshore alternatives, potentially amplifying inefficiencies from limited capital inflows. Ideologically, PredictIt's U.S.-centric has raised concerns about inherent biases in market pricing, as the platform's demographics—predominantly politically engaged males with varying partisan leanings—can lead to systematic distortions driven by identity rather than . Empirical analyses of 2020 election markets reveal persistent anomalies, such as overbetting on improbable outcomes like a for trailing candidates, attributable to partisan loyalty overriding probabilistic updating, with "" from ideologically motivated traders dominating volumes. Studies further indicate that daily partisan sentiment correlates with suboptimal returns, suggesting markets fail to fully aggregate information when participants exhibit tied to political affiliation. Comparisons across platforms highlight PredictIt's relative right-leaning tilt, possibly due to its regulatory constraints attracting users averse to crypto-based alternatives, contrasting with broader or left-leaning biases in less restricted markets. While proponents argue real-money stakes incentivize accuracy over bias, evidence from PredictIt underscores how restricted access exacerbates echo-chamber effects, as low for casual U.S. bettors enable ideological without sufficient counterbalancing from global or professional capital. These dynamics challenge the platform's neutrality, with pricing inefficiencies persisting longer in polarized contexts than in apolitical domains.

References

  1. https://www.predictit.org/support/what-is-predictit
  2. https://www.predictit.org/
  3. https://predictingpolitics.com/predictit-basics/
  4. https://www.marketswiki.com/wiki/PredictIt
  5. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/predictit-announces-resolution-litigation-cftc-203600125.html
  6. https://www.yogonet.com/international/news/2025/09/09/115247-predictit-gains-regulatory-approval-to-operate-as-a-licensed-derivatives-exchange
  7. https://www.predictit.org/platform-announcements
  8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2023/01/24/predictit-gambling-on-politics/
  9. https://politicalpredictionmarkets.com/is-predictit-legal/
  10. https://www.legalsportsreport.com/74880/end-of-predictit-election-betting-around-the-corner/
  11. https://politicalpredictionmarkets.com/volume-and-liquidity-on-predictit/
  12. https://marker.medium.com/how-predictit-became-the-biggest-winner-in-a-chaotic-election-6a1b5043aa92
  13. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/prediction-market-predictit-launches-october-212111466.html
  14. https://www.predictit.org/markets
  15. https://nexteventhorizon.substack.com/p/predictit-gets-upgrades
  16. https://www.ingame.com/predictit-prediction-market-cftc-sports/
  17. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8567-22
  18. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-06/predictit-betting-on-us-elections-nixed-by-american-regulators
  19. https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/09/15/election-betting-site-predictit-sues-to-block-cftc-ordered-shutdown
  20. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-betting-platform-predictits-legal-struggle-could-hamper-regulators-and-hurt-regulated-firms/
  21. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/predictit-versus-commodity-futures-trading-commission.pdf
  22. https://nclalegal.org/case/kevin-clarke-et-al-v-commodity-futures-trading-commission/
  23. https://pechanga.net/predictit-cftc-reach-settlement-in-longstanding-lawsuit-p62483-275.htm
  24. https://sbcamericas.com/2024/01/22/texas-judge-transfers-predictit-lawsuit/
  25. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-51124-CV0.pdf
  26. https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/wh_publications/client_alert_pdfs/20241028-market-integrity-and-manipulation-in-election-prediction-markets.pdf
  27. https://www.cftc.gov/csl/25-20/download
  28. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-15/predictit-says-it-can-expand-political-trades-under-cftc-deal
  29. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Ie2536a0a6c7b11f0a273f7b3de17c00e/Federal-Court-Rules-for-PredictIt-Event-Contracts-Market-in-Action-Against-CFTC?viewType=FullText
  30. https://www.lexology.com/pro/content/predictit-defeats-cftc-in-latest-victory-election-betting-market
  31. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-05/predictit-gains-cftc-approval-to-launch-regulated-exchange
  32. https://www.covers.com/industry/predictit-receives-cftc-approval-for-prediction-exchange-sept-9-2025
  33. https://decrypt.co/338715/prediction-market-predictit-launches-october
  34. https://www.predictit.org/support/how-to-trade-on-predictit
  35. https://www.predictit.org/terms-and-conditions
  36. https://www.predictit.org/privacy-policy
  37. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/07/16/3116432/0/en/PredictIt-Announces-Regulatory-Agreement-Supporting-Broader-Public-Participation.html
  38. https://www.predictit.org/support/faq?query=fees
  39. https://sbcamericas.com/2025/07/16/predictit-expands-after-cftc-deal/
  40. https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/calling-for-cftc-reform-regulated-political-prediction-markets-serve-the-public-interest/GLTR-03-2023/
  41. https://www.willkie.com/publications/2022/08/cftc-staff-predictit
  42. https://coalitionforpoliticalforecasting.org/predictits-cavalier-approach-to-the-cftc/
  43. https://fedsoc.org/events/discussing-clarke-v-cftc-the-case-of-predictit-the-cftc-s-no-action-letter
  44. https://www.willkie.com/publications/2023/08/court-to-cftc-take-no-action
  45. https://www.tradingview.com/news/reuters.com%2C2025:newsml_FWN3TK1IT:0-predictit-announces-a-resolution-to-litigation-with-cftc/
  46. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/09/05/3145471/0/en/Aristotle-Receives-CFTC-Approval-for-DCM-and-DCO-Paving-the-Way-for-New-U-S-Prediction-Market-Exchange.html
  47. https://www.oddsshark.com/industry-news/predictit-cftc-approval-exchange
  48. https://next.io/news/regulation/predictit-gains-cftc-approval/
  49. https://nexteventhorizon.substack.com/p/news-predictit-wins-approval-from-cftc
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207008000320
  51. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/are-markets-more-accurate-than-polls-the-surprising-informational-value-of-just-asking/B78F61BC84B1C48F809E6D408903E66D
  52. https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/666656/azu_etd_hr_2021_0133_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1
  53. https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5502/comparing-538-and-predictit-forecasts-in-2020/
  54. https://www.ubplj.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/2068
  55. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgecalhoun/2022/11/14/the-un-wisdom-of-crowds-prediction-markets-failed-their-midterm-exams/
  56. https://arxiv.org/html/2507.08921
  57. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/12/election-results-show-potential-of-prediction-markets.html
  58. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/elections/prediction-markets-election-polls.html
  59. https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election
  60. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/predictit-beats-polls-statisticians-and-analysts-potentially-accurately-forecasting-final-presidential-election-results-in-every-state-301167573.html
  61. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/betting-markets-now-see-democrats-keeping-their-grip-on-senate-in-midterm-elections-11659542352
  62. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/harris-trump-polls-tighten-predictit-173916471.html
  63. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/c3iQryHA4tnAvPZEv/limits-of-current-us-prediction-markets-predictit-case-study
  64. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/dont-trust-the-political-prediction-markets
  65. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/why-political-betting-markets-are-failing.html
  66. https://www.socialscience.international/aiden-singh-predictit-inefficiencies
  67. https://www.predictit.org/research
  68. https://www.fia.org/marketvoice/articles/political-prediction-markets-turn-pro
  69. https://www.tradersmagazine.com/featured_articles/prediction-markets-gain-ground-navigating-regulation-and-innovation/
  70. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/09/06/harry-crane-and-koleman-strumpf-political-prediction-markets-are-an-antidote-to-degraded-public-discourse/
  71. https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/12/journalists-wake-up-to-the-power-of-prediction-markets/
  72. https://analysis.predictit.org/post/696193366520627200/predictable-insights-will-2022-be-like-2016-and
  73. https://www.startribune.com/political-prediction-markets-are-a-public-good/600205983
  74. https://analysis.predictit.org/
  75. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/political-prediction-markets-what-are-they-good-for/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10453007/
  77. https://institute.global/insights/tech-and-digitalisation/prediction-worth-testing-betting-markets-would-improve-our-governing-institutions
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30815594_Prediction_Markets_How_Do_Incentive_Schemes_Affect_Prediction_Accuracy
  79. https://rajivsethi.substack.com/p/the-closing-of-a-prediction-market
  80. https://www.ubplj.org/index.php/jpm/article/view/1796
  81. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6bSjRezJDxR2omHKE/real-life-examples-of-prediction-systems-interfering-with
  82. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/predictit-triumphs-over-regulatory-arrogance-political-futures-market-cftc-trading-australia-efe8780d
  83. https://www.econlib.org/political-prediction-markets-the-statocrats-fears/
  84. https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/event-contracts-are-step-too-far-derivatives-regulation
  85. https://stanfordreview.org/kalshis-court-victory-a-turning-point-for-prediction-markets-2/
  86. https://www.casino.org/news/predictit-lifts-limit-on-political-trades-in-new-cftc-agreement/
  87. https://blog.syzgroup.com/slow-food-for-thought/us-elections-should-we-follow-the-odds-predicted-by-betting-websites
  88. https://firstsigma.substack.com/p/midterm-elections-forecast-comparison-analysis
  89. https://asteriskmag.com/issues/05/prediction-markets-have-an-elections-problem-jeremiah-johnson
  90. http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%2520ANNUAL%2520MEETINGS/2025-Greece/papers/Predictit3.pdf
  91. https://luckboxmagazine.com/trends/do-prediction-markets-mitigate-cognitive-biases/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.