A recent survey highlighted that only 20% of Americans with a basic understanding of prediction markets view their growth as beneficial for U.S. society. Conducted by The Politico Poll in collaboration with Public First, the survey included 1,667 adults and centered on those who were somewhat knowledgeable about prediction markets.
The findings indicated that most respondents regard event contracts trading as a form of gambling and expressed a strong desire to make markets based on elections and politics illegal. Concerns over potential market rigging, insider trading, and the risk of gambling addiction were voiced by many participants.
When asked about the implications of prediction markets becoming more popular, 20% responded positively—7% felt very positive while 13% were somewhat positive. In contrast, 16% expressed very negative sentiments, and another 16% felt somewhat negative. Notably, 24% of respondents were uncertain how to categorize the trend.
The sentiment around prediction markets varied with demographics. Among men polled, 24% viewed prediction markets positively. This perception was shared by 28% of those aged 18 to 44.
While 6% of all participants reported having placed a bet on a prediction market, signifying roughly one in 17 respondents, more than half (53%) stated they would not participate in such platforms. Among the 18-34 age group, engagement was higher, with 12% already on prediction market platforms and 30% considering it. Interest in prediction markets decreased with age.
Focusing on the perception of prediction markets as gambling, 36% of participants acknowledged them as platforms comparable to traditional sportsbooks and casinos. An additional 20% believed they provided gambling-like products but should be classified differently. Only 8% contended that prediction markets are akin to financial exchanges.
The survey also gauged opinions on regulatory approaches. A third of respondents (33%) advocated for stricter government regulations on prediction markets, while 19% felt current regulations were sufficient. Eleven percent called for looser restrictions. When asked who should regulate these markets, 28% favored federal oversight, while 17% supported self-regulation and 15% believed states should take charge. Eight percent thought no regulation was necessary.
Politics prompted particularly strong opinions. While over half (53%) believed sports betting should be legal, only 30% were in favor of allowing predictions on election outcomes. Four in 10 respondents insisted such trading should be banned. A mere 27% thought it acceptable to trade on statements made by public figures like President Donald Trump, with 40% believing those 'mention markets' should be outlawed. Notably, 14% felt that candidates and their teams should be permitted to wager on their own elections.
Concerns about manipulation and insider trading were prevalent. When asked to identify the major downsides of prediction markets, the most common responses were: market manipulation or rigging (28%), increased gambling addiction (28%), financial losses beyond what individuals could afford (27%), and the potential for insider trading (21%).
Interestingly, a significant portion of those familiar with prediction markets expressed uncertainty about various aspects of them. Responses like 'don't know' came up frequently, particularly regarding the sufficiency of government restrictions (37%), the comparison to online gambling (36%), who should oversee these platforms (32%), and the legality of trading on mention markets (32%) or celebrity events.
