I agree with that.
The key, now, is to go beyond the accuracy issue and to move on to the utility issue.
It’-s a much complex problematic, which those who have been over-selling the prediction markets are unwilling to undertake. [*]
Maybe a small bunch of prediction market people, maybe assembled in a new prediction market structure, might go for that lofty goal of fingering the specific instances where prediction markets create real social utility.
[*] Yelling across the harbor, like an illuminated Jesus Christ, that prediction markets can help “-avoiding future [financial] crisis”- is a sign that some prediction market practitioners have lost their intellectual compass. To my knowledge, InTrade hadn’-t had any prediction market focused on the “-looming credit crunch crisis”-, last summer. Its CEO should be careful about making any grand statement. As I wrote many times, at best, the prediction markets are the best umpire you can have between either the mass media and the politicians, on one hand, and a group consisting of the best experts, on the other hand. An umpire is only useful during critical times, in a game. But, other than that, most of the times, the umpire is not the determinant of the game —-the players are.
The researchers and practitioners should make a solid case for each of these critical instances where the prediction markets have a real social utility.
Stop the over-selling. Let’-s start the real work.