I think people misunderstand what prediction markets are actually pricing.

Every time a market is wrong, people rush to say prediction markets "failed." I don't think that's the right way to look at it.

A market trading at 80% isn't saying an event is guaranteed to happen. It's saying that, given everything currently known, participants collectively think it has roughly an 80% chance. If the remaining 20% happens, that doesn't automatically mean the market was inefficient. Low-probability events occur all the time.

What interests me more is whether the market was *well calibrated* before the outcome. If you replayed the same situation 100 times with the same information available, would that event happen close to 80 times? That's a much better test than judging the market based on a single result.

I think too many people evaluate prediction markets with hindsight. Once the outcome is known, every missed signal feels obvious. Before the outcome, those signals are rarely as clear as people remember.

That's why I care less about whether a market was right and more about whether it was pricing uncertainty reasonably.