Prediction Markets as Legal Arbiters

Private prediction markets are increasingly forced to define ambiguous political events (e.g., 'invasion') when settling contracts, turning what were neutral betting platforms into de‑facto arbiters of geopolitical facts. That creates incentives for legal disputes, manipulation, and foreign‑policy signaling and demands standardized adjudication rules or independent resolution bodies. — How platforms resolve contested event definitions affects market integrity, insider‑trading risk, and the public narrative around high‑stakes international operations.