#预测市场 After reading this in-depth analysis of the risks of prediction market manipulation, there are several points worth clarifying.

First, it is important to recognize the current situation: manipulating prediction markets is indeed feasible, but the costs far outweigh the benefits. The 8-point fluctuation in Romney’s stock price on InTrade in 2012 and the abnormal rise in Trump’s price on Polymarket in 2024 all demonstrate one thing—short-term price boosts are not difficult, but sustaining such distortions long enough to influence votes becomes exponentially more difficult. The research data from Rhode and Strumpf is crucial: markets with sufficient liquidity will automatically correct themselves, arbitrageurs will immediately counteract, and ultimately, manipulators end up losing money.

However, there is a risk point that is often overlooked—public opinion pollution may be more damaging than price manipulation itself. Even if manipulation fails, as long as someone claims it happened, a trust crisis can be created on social media. This is especially deadly in the era of AI-generated fake opinions, because in an environment of distrust, any abnormal fluctuation can be interpreted as a conspiracy.

The most practical governance recommendation is to set a liquidity lower limit. News organizations should only report prices from high-liquidity markets, which preserves the informational value of prediction markets while increasing manipulation costs. Additionally, transparency indicators—such as trading concentration, abnormal trading patterns, and order book details—can enable market participants and the public to make basic rational judgments.

Ultimately, it depends on the enforcement strength of regulatory authorities, especially in tracking cross-border funds. KYC systems can identify foreign manipulation activities, which is vital for the integrity of the 2028 election markets.