It may not be the argument that prediction market platforms are trying to make in courts across the United States. Still, for 61% of Americans, things are pretty obvious: event contracts, as popularized by Kalshi and Polymarket, are closer to gambling than investing.
New Survey Suggests Americans Are Aware of the Risky Nature of Prediction Markets
This is the conclusion of a new Ipsos poll conducted with the American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM), which characterizes buying or trading event contracts on prediction markets in exactly these terms.
Despite growing interest in the segment, those familiar with prediction markets appear well aware of the inherent risks, with 91% of respondents who have heard of them considering these markets financially risky.
However, prediction markets aren’t as popular as media headlines might suggest. The AIBM/Ipsos survey finds that these platforms still occupy a comparatively niche position, especially when measured against more established products such as sportsbooks.
Only 21% of respondents said that they were “somewhat familiar” with how prediction markets operate, whereas 35% of interviewees confirmed that they were aware of sportsbooks.
This comes at a time when the cohort of prediction market users is exclusively under the age of 50, suggesting that these platforms are making inroads with some of the most valuable long-term demographics.
While a Truist Securities analysis suggested that the concentration of prediction market users is greater in states that have not regulated sports gambling, the AIBM/Ipsos survey indicates that there is no meaningful difference in how popular these platforms are between regulated and unregulated states.
The recent poll has also gone a step further in probing public attitudes towards the segment. When asked whether prediction markets should be regulated similarly to gambling companies, 59% of respondents said yes.
At the same time, 52% believe they should be treated more like financial products and services, while 37% support the creation of an entirely new regulatory framework.
At the same time, few Americans see prediction markets as a positive force. Just 4% of respondents said they believe these platforms are good for society, while 38% view them as outright harmful and 34% remain neutral.
Confidence in the integrity of these markets is also limited, with only 9% expressing trust in their ability to prevent insider trading, compared to 61% who are not confident. Against this backdrop, a clear majority, 66%, say it would be a bad idea to leave prediction markets completely unregulated.
