Hypothetically, someone who doesn’t live in the United States and is considering accepting a job there might appreciate the insight from prediction markets on the upcoming U.S. presidential election. If the likely candidate promises to enact policies that would make that person’s life worse, that would give them reason to reject the job offer.

Other hypothetical prediction markets whose insights would be useful include those used in futarchy, a proposed government system in which decisions are made based on betting markets. The proposal: https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html; some analysis: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/futarchy. In futarchy, prediction markets would be set up for, for example, “average happiness of citizens (as measured by regular survey) will increase in 1 year if Bill ABC passes” and “average happiness of citizens will increase in 1 year if Bill ABC does not pass”. The government would pass or reject proposed bills according to whichever market predicts higher happiness, and the market describing the event that did not happen would be closed and its money refunded.

I would agree that the insights provided are little to none. I think this is some sort of fallacy that being being PR'd by tech bros with a lot of skin in the game attempting to come up with some kind of positive reason to sell to people. It's fairly easy to see right through it though.

WSJ had an insightful article that claimed .1% of the accounts take 67% of the profit, along with some other facts: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/polymarket-kalshi-bett...

Full disclosure, I've written performant market making algorithms for Polymarket. I'm actually a fan of these markets and enjoy the statistics and engineering challenges they present, but see it as a net negative on society. I'd gladly give up my PnL if it was a net positive on the American psych.