预测市场平台如Kalshi和Polymarket正在以惊人的速度崛起，其估值分别达到了400亿美元和150亿美元。仅在2025年6月，Kalshi处理了330亿美元的交易额，而Polymarket的交易量也达到了近140亿美元。与抽取固定水头的传统博彩公司不同，这些平台允许交易者对真实的具体事件进行双向押注，合约价格在0到1美元之间波动，直接反映市场对事件发生概率的共识。在2024年美国总统大选期间，Kalshi在选举周内即处理了约7.5亿美元的交易。

然而，随之而来的内部交易、市场操纵以及规则适用争议也显著增加。在2024年委内瑞拉大选中，官方宣布马杜罗以51%的得票率获胜，而反对派则公布了显示冈萨雷斯大胜的投票收据，导致超过600万美元的押注资金陷入严重规则争议，最终Polymarket以冈萨雷斯获胜结算该市场。类似的结算混乱屡见不鲜：例如在哈梅内伊市场中，Kalshi不得不自掏腰包支付约220万美元以平息清算争议；而在针对阿亚图拉或安斯罗皮克（Anthropic）超级碗广告的3,300万美元市场上，严格按规则条款执行的方式均招致交易者的强烈不满。

去中心化治理机制的缺陷进一步威胁着预测市场的公信力。在Polymarket中，争端被外包给加密货币UMA持有人进行投票清算。区块链调查公司TRM Labs分析了过去三年3,250多起UMA争端，发现前5个巨鲸钱包控制了平均40%的投票权，前10个钱包控制了58%的投票权，最大单一钱包持股占比达8%。Dune的数据进一步证实，在200个最赚钱的交易钱包中，部分账户通过协同UMA投票在41个重合市场上斩获了740万美元的利润。随着机构投资者的介入，完善模糊的清算规则已成为行业生存的核心挑战。

Prediction market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket are experiencing rapid growth, achieving private valuations of $40bn and $15bn, respectively. In June 2025 alone, Kalshi processed $33bn in trading volume, while Polymarket handled nearly $14bn. Unlike traditional bookmakers that operate as the house, prediction markets function as peer-to-peer exchanges where traders purchase binary contracts priced between $0 and $1, effectively translating contract prices into real-time probability estimates. During the 2024 US presidential election week, Kalshi executed over $750m in trades.

However, the rapid expansion of these platforms has been accompanied by market manipulation and disputes over event resolution rules. Following the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, official state channels declared Nicolás Maduro the winner with 51% of the vote, whereas voting receipts showed Edmundo González winning decisively. This triggered a major rules dispute over a $6m market on Polymarket before the platform eventually resolved in favor of González. Settlement ambiguities have proven costly: Kalshi absorbed approximately $2.2m out-of-pocket to settle disputes following military strikes in Iran, while a $33m market on Super Bowl advertising triggered intense pushback over strict rule interpretations.

Governance mechanisms built around decentralized oracle models face severe concentration risks that undermine market integrity. On Polymarket, disputed outcomes are submitted to holders of the UMA cryptocurrency token for resolution. An analysis of over 3,250 UMA disputes by TRM Labs revealed that the top five cryptocurrency wallet addresses control an average of 40% of the voting power, with the top ten controlling nearly 58%. Furthermore, data from Dune indicated that entities linked to high-volume trading accounts systematically voted in aligned UMA disputes, generating over $7.4m in cumulative profits across multiple contested markets.

Source: The platforms let their users bet on world events. But when outcomes are ambiguous, who gets to decide what happened?

Subtitle: [[IMAGE]]

Dateline: Jul 23rd 2026