2026-01-10 16:23:33

Prediction markets have been popular for years, but recent events have truly exposed their shortcomings. According to reports, someone placed a bet on a prediction platform that a certain foreign politician would step down by the end of the month, and they actually made $400,000. That single win was enough to prompt over thirty U.S. lawmakers to push for legislation aiming to ban political betting by elected officials on prediction markets.

Frankly, the core issue is this: when your bets are directly related to real-world power struggles, information asymmetry and insider trading become almost unavoidable. Those who possess more insider information can profit at the expense of others. This unfairness is enough to undermine the entire market’s credibility.

But some have thought of a different approach. For example, the Max ecosystem fundamentally avoids these risks by changing the underlying assets being traded.

First, they don’t trade on "what will happen in the future," but on "what has already happened." Specifically, the core trading assets in the Max ecosystem are recorded on-chain donations that have already been completed—especially donations to the free education platform GiggleAcademy. You’re trading facts from the past and present, with all data transparently written on the blockchain, leaving no room for ambiguity.

Second, this system relies entirely on on-chain transparency. The reason prediction markets are prone to insider trading is that information flows off-chain—some individuals may have insider tips offline and act before the market reacts. Max is different; all key activities—donation flows, every expenditure from the community fund—are 100% public on-chain, accessible for anyone to verify at any time. Without "behind-the-scenes" information advantages, there’s no fertile ground for insider trading.

The last perspective is the difference in value orientation. Betting in prediction markets can interfere with political processes, and participants often aim to profit from such interference. The value appreciation logic of $GIGGLE tokens is entirely different—it serves a single public welfare mission: global educational equity. The system neither involves itself in political events nor is influenced by power struggles. Its value growth is driven solely by ongoing demand for educational philanthropy and the network effects of the ecosystem itself.

Ultimately, this is the fundamental difference between blockchain spirit and traditional prediction markets. The former eliminates insider advantages through transparency and certainty, while no matter how regulated, the latter cannot escape the fate of information asymmetry.

GIGGLE-2,69%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FrogInTheWell

· 14h ago

$400,000 for a single shot to make senators join in—what does this tell us? It shows that the prediction market approach is fundamentally unplayable; information asymmetry is a dead end. Based on past data trading, with no uncertainty about the future, this idea is really good. On-chain transparency makes insider trading impossible; this is what blockchain should look like. Exactly right, charitable education initiatives should be handled this way, without involving power struggles. Using facts as the basis, without guesses, indeed avoids the insider problem in prediction markets. Driven by a public welfare mission, it's much more reliable than prediction markets that solely profit from price differences. I just want to ask, can this model be applied to other public welfare fields? On-chain data cannot be tampered with, which truly surpasses traditional models. In the end, it's still the old problem of information asymmetry; no matter how lively prediction markets are for a hundred years, they can't save us.

View OriginalReply0

PancakeFlippa

· 15h ago

$400,000 per shot, this guy is really ruthless... --- Predicting markets and playing politics is inherently a moral crisis; insider trading is impossible to prevent. --- On-chain transparency is indeed impressive, but does it still feel too idealistic? Will reality be so pure? --- I quite agree with the logic of GiggleAcademy; at least their goal is straightforward and not about power games. --- To be honest, as soon as real money is involved, there is no absolute transparency. Don't fool yourself. --- Max's approach indeed avoids political risks, but surviving is the real key. --- The off-chain rumors segment is correct; prediction markets are essentially information battlegrounds. --- Donations are a much more reliable target than predicting political events, I agree with that. --- Public welfare narratives are good, but whether $GIGGLE can really take off still depends. --- Over thirty legislators criticizing it shows that prediction markets have indeed hit a nerve; it's time to reflect. --- Transparency eliminating insider advantages... sounds great, but someone will always find a loophole.

View OriginalReply0

DegenMcsleepless

· 01-10 16:53

A $400,000 USD move has already alarmed the US Congress. Predictive markets are really quite exciting, huh? On-chain transparency is indeed a secret weapon, but the problem is... how many people will actually verify? This logic sounds good, but it still feels like just a pie-in-the-sky plan. Educational public welfare sounds noble, but token appreciation and original intentions often don't go hand in hand. The fate of information asymmetry... sounds like traditional finance, and the crypto market is even more competitive. The idea of no behind-the-scenes trading sounds great, but when the coin price takes off, aren't early holders also at an informational advantage?

View OriginalReply0

SquidTeacher

· 01-10 16:52

$400,000 a shot? That’s why traditional prediction markets are always nailed down—information asymmetry is right there for everyone to see. --- On-chain transparency is indeed ruthless. Max’s approach completely removes the political flavor, focusing only on trading historical data... It’s probably a way to avoid pitfalls. --- Basically, it’s something that gambling addicts can’t do. Education and public welfare are much more reliable than betting on officials’ resignation. --- Insider trading is always the original sin of prediction markets. No matter how regulated, it’s useless... Unless you completely eliminate the opportunity to "bet." --- From political betting to educational ecology, the switch is interesting, but the key is whether real people are actually using it. --- Totally agree. Information asymmetry is the Achilles’ heel of traditional prediction markets. Max’s new approach is indeed clever. --- Haha, American lawmakers only think about banning when they’re desperate. What does that mean? It means the money has been stolen by insiders. --- Off-chain rumors vs. on-chain black and white—this gap is enormous.

View OriginalReply0

CascadingDipBuyer

· 01-10 16:50

$400,000 is enough to scare the politicians so much, it clearly hits the nerve. The information gap off-chain is the original sin; prediction markets are ultimately a game of information. Past events are more reliable for trading than guessing the future; at least data doesn't lie. The public good orientation and the "cutting leeks" logic are truly two different worlds. If transparency can't beat it, then just change the rules—this is what blockchain should be doing.

View OriginalReply0

AlgoAlchemist

· 01-10 16:49

$40 million just scared Congress out of their wits haha, this thing is truly incredible Information asymmetry is the original sin; off-chain rumors will never surpass on-chain black and white I need to think more about Max's approach—trading based on past facts rather than future predictions, which indeed avoids the power struggle The key is transparency—without behind-the-scenes dealings, there are no insider trades. That's what the blockchain should really be doing The logic behind $GIGGLE is much cleaner compared to those political bets—it's all about promoting educational equity

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterXiao

· 01-10 16:25

$400,000 per bet, this is the ceiling of the prediction market. It's really hard to prevent the leek-cutting (exploiting retail investors). On-chain transparency is powerful; insider trading has no room to survive. This is what Web3 should look like. Education and public welfare + token appreciation— I like this logic. It's much more reliable than pure gambling markets. Honestly, the prediction market now is just a playground for the wealthy; retail investors going in are just being fed to the wolves. Max's architecture is indeed interesting; at least it has eliminated the old problem of information asymmetry.

View OriginalReply0