Although people should err on the side of not downvoting during Draft Amnesty Week, there’s not enough here for a standalone post—not much more than a single unsupported assertion. It would be much more appropriate as a “Quick Take” than a full post. There are a limited number of post slots on the frontpage, so downvoting something like this post helps keep a more substantial post on the frontpage.
As far as supporting/developing your idea, the obvious issue to me is the need to establish that there is enough money out there to justify using prediction markets as a “time-effective” means of making additional monies to donate. In particular, markets subsidized by EA donors probably shouldn’t count as much or at all—you would just be “winning back” money that was already EA-committed, not bringing new monies into play.
Moreover, at least in the US, there are often regulatory, transaction cost, and other issues that make it more difficult to make any significant money on these markets even with superior predictive ability. E.g., this post from 2020. Is your idea limited to people in jurisdictions where prediction markets are less regulated? Have the barriers to making lots of money here diminished? Can you show that this is more productive than EAs’ likely counterfactual use of their time?
Those are some good points! I’ll make this a quick take, though I don’t plan on developing it further, as I don’t see it as more time-efficient than my other projects. Thanks!
Why are people downvoting this? please tell me so I can improve it
Although people should err on the side of not downvoting during Draft Amnesty Week, there’s not enough here for a standalone post—not much more than a single unsupported assertion. It would be much more appropriate as a “Quick Take” than a full post. There are a limited number of post slots on the frontpage, so downvoting something like this post helps keep a more substantial post on the frontpage.
As far as supporting/developing your idea, the obvious issue to me is the need to establish that there is enough money out there to justify using prediction markets as a “time-effective” means of making additional monies to donate. In particular, markets subsidized by EA donors probably shouldn’t count as much or at all—you would just be “winning back” money that was already EA-committed, not bringing new monies into play.
Moreover, at least in the US, there are often regulatory, transaction cost, and other issues that make it more difficult to make any significant money on these markets even with superior predictive ability. E.g., this post from 2020. Is your idea limited to people in jurisdictions where prediction markets are less regulated? Have the barriers to making lots of money here diminished? Can you show that this is more productive than EAs’ likely counterfactual use of their time?
Those are some good points! I’ll make this a quick take, though I don’t plan on developing it further, as I don’t see it as more time-efficient than my other projects. Thanks!