Canadian Prediction Markets: A Former Operator’s Case for Skepticism

The recent op-ed published across major Canadian outlets by a former prediction market operator serves as a sobering counter-narrative to the current global hype surrounding decentralized forecasting. While platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi have captured the public imagination—and billions in trading volume during the 2024-2025 election cycles—the Canadian experience suggests that the path to a sustainable, regulated, and accurate prediction market is fraught with structural and regulatory obstacles that are often overlooked by Web3 enthusiasts. The core of this skepticism lies in the 'liquidity trap' that plagues smaller, jurisdiction-specific markets. For a prediction market to function as an effective forecasting tool, it requires a diverse pool of participants with varying information sets. In Canada, the fragmented regulatory environment, where each province's securities commission maintains its own set of rules, has historically stifled the growth of a unified national market. This fragmentation leads to thin order books, where a single large trade can disproportionately move the price, rendering the market price a poor reflection of actual probability.

Beyond liquidity, the author points to the persistent issue of market integrity. In the crypto-adjacent world of prediction markets, wash trading—where users trade with themselves to create the illusion of volume—remains a significant concern. Without the robust oversight mechanisms found in traditional equity markets, these platforms can easily become echo chambers for partisan bias or, worse, playgrounds for manipulation. The op-ed suggests that the 'wisdom of the crowd' is only as good as the crowd itself; if the crowd is composed of a small, homogenous group of speculators or bots, the resulting data is more noise than signal. This is particularly relevant as decentralized platforms struggle with the 'Oracle Problem'—the difficulty of ensuring that the real-world data used to settle contracts is both accurate and immune to tampering.

“

In Canada, the fragmented regulatory environment, where each province's securities commission maintains its own set of rules, has historically stifled the growth of a unified national market.

The distinction between hedging and gambling also remains a point of contention for Canadian regulators. While proponents argue that prediction markets allow businesses to hedge against political or economic risks, regulators often view them through the lens of provincial gaming acts. This classification subjects operators to a different set of taxes and compliance requirements that can make commercial viability nearly impossible. The author’s skepticism is rooted in this practical reality: the gap between the elegant theory of market-based forecasting and the messy, expensive reality of operating within the Canadian legal framework. For Canada to participate in the burgeoning prediction economy, a fundamental shift in regulatory philosophy is required. Rather than viewing these platforms as fringe gambling sites, a coordinated federal approach that treats them as legitimate financial instruments could provide the necessary framework for growth. However, until such a shift occurs, the skepticism voiced by former operators will likely remain the prevailing sentiment for those attempting to build in the Canadian space.

Looking forward, the industry must address the 'echo chamber' effect that has become prevalent in the wake of the 2024 US election. Many markets failed to provide accurate signals because they were dominated by a specific demographic of traders whose financial incentives were aligned with their political biases rather than objective reality. This 'bias-driven pricing' undermines the primary value proposition of prediction markets as a superior alternative to traditional polling. As the Web3 space moves toward more sophisticated decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) to manage these markets, the lessons from Canada’s earlier, more centralized attempts provide a vital warning: technology alone cannot solve for a lack of diverse, high-quality participation and a clear, supportive regulatory mandate.