Most new “decentralized prediction markets” are simply clones of Polymarket/Kalshi, offering less liquidity, reduced trust, and no genuine competitive edge.
Same regulatory grey zone. Same binary markets. Different logo. Same topics. Same UX.
If you’re not changing the structure of the game, you’re just fragmenting liquidity and making the entire sector weaker.
Polymarket owns the “permissionless, degen, real-world info” lane with deep liquidity on politics, macro, and culture. Kalshi owns the “regulated event exchange” lane with CFTC oversight and clean fiat rails.
For the average user who wants to bet on “Will X happen?” with real money and fast settlement, the job is already done.
→ The core issues today are not “we need more platforms”.
Liquidity is thin and fragmented on long-tail markets. Regulation is a minefield, split by jurisdiction.
UX and trust still trade off between “fully on-chain but clunky” vs “smooth but custodial.”
A new app with the same mechanics doesn’t fix any of that. It just adds another ghost market with 3 traders and a 15% spread.
When a new market is worth building New prediction markets only make sense if they:
→ Unlock a new vertical (e.g., DAO governance/futarchy, enterprise forecasting, specialized sectors).
→ Fix liquidity in a fundamental way (novel incentive design, cross-venue routing, market-making infra).
→ Solve a regulatory gap (clear licenses, compliant geos, transparent structure).
If you can’t explain in one sentence what you do differently from Polymarket/Kalshi/Augur—beyond “on another chain”, you’re not innovating, you’re diluting.
Prediction markets don’t need more platforms. They need: deeper liquidity, clearer rules, better UX, and sharper use cases.
Until a new project tackles at least one of those head-on, launching “yet another prediction market” isn’t building the future.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
1 Likes
Reward
1
1
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
Plastikkid
· 7h ago
Right now, the entire market is disconnected from reality, just a simulation of trading by bots of a global market maker. I have already written several articles about this.
We don’t need another on-chain prediction market.
We need a better one.
Most new “decentralized prediction markets” are simply clones of Polymarket/Kalshi, offering less liquidity, reduced trust, and no genuine competitive edge.
Same regulatory grey zone.
Same binary markets.
Different logo.
Same topics.
Same UX.
If you’re not changing the structure of the game, you’re just fragmenting liquidity and making the entire sector weaker.
Polymarket owns the “permissionless, degen, real-world info” lane with deep liquidity on politics, macro, and culture. Kalshi owns the “regulated event exchange” lane with CFTC oversight and clean fiat rails.
For the average user who wants to bet on “Will X happen?” with real money and fast settlement, the job is already done.
→ The core issues today are not “we need more platforms”.
Liquidity is thin and fragmented on long-tail markets.
Regulation is a minefield, split by jurisdiction.
UX and trust still trade off between “fully on-chain but clunky” vs “smooth but custodial.”
A new app with the same mechanics doesn’t fix any of that. It just adds another ghost market with 3 traders and a 15% spread.
When a new market is worth building
New prediction markets only make sense if they:
→ Unlock a new vertical (e.g., DAO governance/futarchy, enterprise forecasting, specialized sectors).
→ Fix liquidity in a fundamental way (novel incentive design, cross-venue routing, market-making infra).
→ Solve a regulatory gap (clear licenses, compliant geos, transparent structure).
→ Radically improve UX & on-ramps (non-crypto native, mobile-first, simple mental model).
If you can’t explain in one sentence what you do differently from Polymarket/Kalshi/Augur—beyond “on another chain”, you’re not innovating, you’re diluting.
Prediction markets don’t need more platforms.
They need: deeper liquidity, clearer rules, better UX, and sharper use cases.
Until a new project tackles at least one of those head-on, launching “yet another prediction market” isn’t building the future.
It’s building noise.
Economad writes✍️