#预测市场 Seeing this analysis on the risks of prediction market manipulation, what comes to mind isn't a hypothetical scenario in 2028, but real historical events that have already occurred.

The account from The Washington Post in 1905, the bizarre surge in Romney stocks on InTrade in 2012, and the 2024 speculation about "foreign interference" triggered by a French investor on Polymarket—these events are connected, revealing a pattern: every market fluctuation triggers people's most primal fears. It's not the fear that prices have deviated from reality itself, but the fear that an unseen force is secretly manipulating our perceptions.

The key issue isn't how easy it is to manipulate the market—research by Rhode and Strumpf has already shown that large-scale manipulation is costly and short-lived. The real danger is that even if manipulation fails, just the *suspicion* of it can undermine trust. In an era where AI-generated fake public opinion is rampant and traditional polls are already riddled with flaws, prediction markets should be a lifeline—they require real money and genuine incentives. But once they are frequently highlighted by news media and resonate with social media, even a small fluctuation can be amplified into a "conspiracy."

I see the suggestions in the article—liquidity floors, trading monitoring, transparency disclosures—these are all valid. But honestly, I value a fundamental shift in logic more: media and platforms must move from "report all fluctuations" to "understand the causes of fluctuations." We can't let a single large trade by a trader, amplified by CNN, turn into a national trust crisis.

History shows me that the best markets aren't the most perfect, but the most transparent. What we need isn't hiding anomalies but explaining them openly. That way, even if someone tries to manipulate in the future, they'll find— the cost of manipulation has shifted from money to reputation. And at that point, the resilience of the market will truly be demonstrated.