Well, so start at the beginning.

The basic vision is that prospective markets are shown to be an unmatched mechanism for aggregating

information and telling us about stuff.

And initially, most people who come to this area think about let's have markets on the big

topics in public conversation in the news and politician speeches and policy

walk reports. And that's what you're seeing initially here with Palshi and Pauley Market as well.

But I think most of the value is actually advising decisions for individuals and organizations,

not in the big public conversation topics. We could advise business ventures like that with conditional stock markets.

So for example, we could have a stock market in a company that says, what's the price of

this company if the CEO stays in power past the end of the quarter and another, what

happens if the CEO leaves by the end of the quarter?

Those would give you two different stock prices. The higher one would be the advice about what to do. There aren't any decisions

companies make much bigger than that. For decades, Robin Hansen has argued that prediction markets

are one of the most effective tools humans have for aggregating information and forecasting outcomes.

Not just for elections or sports betting, but for helping companies, governments, and individuals make better decisions.

That vision is becoming more relevant as platforms like Polymarket and CalSheet bring prediction markets into mainstream culture.

But it's also triggering backlash, including new efforts to criminalize or restrict these systems.

At the center of the debate is a deeper question.

Are prediction markets just gambling, or are they a new form of social coordination and knowledge discovery?

Theo Jaffe and Sophia Puccini speak with Robin Hanson about prediction markets,

futurism, games, and the future of forecasting.

So today we wanted to talk about the new law in Minnesota, which makes it a felony to operate a prediction market in the state.

...