“prediction markets should be regulated like journalism, not gambling”
Robin Hanson responds to a CFTC call for comments by arguing prediction markets deserve the same regulatory treatment as other information institutions like journalism and academia. Drawing parallels between six common harms shared across all information systems, from insider trading to manipulation, he contends markets should be approved by default and restricted only on clear evidence of specific harm. The piece makes the economist's case that the information value of prediction markets justifies a lighter regulatory touch than traditional gambling law.
Some technical background helpful