In a recent post published to X, Buterin said prediction markets have reached sufficient scale to support professional traders and contribute meaningfully to public discourse. At the same time, he argued that platforms appear to be “over-converging” on cryptocurrency price speculation, sports wagering, and other high-engagement trades that offer “dopamine value” but limited long-term societal benefit.

He attributed part of this shift to revenue pressures during bear markets, writing that teams may feel compelled to lean into these categories because they generate income when broader conditions are weak. Buterin described the trend as a slide toward “corposlop,” cautioning that overreliance on uninformed traders can create unhealthy product incentives.

Buterin identified three types of participants in prediction markets: “smart traders” who supply information, “naive traders” who lose money on incorrect views, and “hedgers” who accept expected losses to reduce risk. He said current platforms lean heavily on the first two categories.

One X user responded to Buterin’s critique by writing, “The Overton window on gambling has shifted enough where you should realize how off base this now sounds. Like it or not, everyone not extremely wealthy is by default now financially desperate.”

Buterin replied: “Yeah, and encouraging financially desperate people to gamble is bad because the likely outcome is that they become even more financially desperate.”

Beyond criticism, Buterin proposed repositioning prediction markets as tools for hedging. He offered an example of a biotech investor who might bet on an unfavorable election outcome to offset potential portfolio losses. In his illustration, such a trade narrows return ranges and reduces volatility, creating measurable utility even if the expected value of the bet is negative.

He also revisited ideas associated with economist Robin Hanson, noting that so-called “info buyers” who subsidize markets to extract insight face public goods challenges, since the resulting information benefits non-paying observers.

Buterin extended the hedging framework to stablecoins, questioning whether users ultimately want exposure to fiat currency or simply price stability. He suggested that heavy reliance on U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins could constrain decentralization. His criticism follows recent reports that show stablecoins dominate crypto casinos and prediction markets in terms of settlement.

In the broad crypto betting sector, stablecoins had the upper hand in 2025, and analysts expect this trend to continue going forward. As an alternative, Buterin proposed creating price indices for major categories of goods and services, paired with prediction markets tied to those indices. Individuals or businesses could hold personalized baskets representing expected future expenses, rather than a single fiat-pegged token.

Such a system, he wrote, would require markets denominated in assets participants want to hold, instead of non-interest-bearing fiat, which he said carries high opportunity costs. Buterin concluded by urging builders to focus on long-term financial infrastructure rather than short-term speculative volume. 2025 was a big year for prediction markets, and in early 2026, growth is expected to continue.

• Why did Vitalik Buterin criticize prediction markets?
  He said platforms are concentrating on short-term crypto and sports bets instead of long-term informational value.
• What did Buterin say about gambling and financial desperation?
  He argued that encouraging financially desperate people to gamble can worsen their financial position.
• What alternative use case did Buterin propose?
  He suggested focusing on hedging strategies that reduce volatility and risk.
• How could prediction markets replace stablecoins?
  Users could hold personalized baskets tied to expected expenses instead of fiat-pegged tokens.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。