How prediction markets resolve—and why the fine print matters

Prediction markets turn future events into contracts with settlement conditions. The short title helps people scan, but the full rules define the claim. A contract asking whether something is “announced” may resolve differently from one asking whether it is “released”, “available”, or “in effect”.

This distinction matters even if you never trade. If your research question and the contract's definition differ, the displayed probability may be accurate for the contract but misleading for your purpose.

Resolution language varies by market, but the same pressure points appear repeatedly.

Two contracts may appear to cover the same story while using different cut-off dates or evidence standards. One could require an official government release; another might accept reporting from named media organisations. The probability gap can reflect those contractual differences rather than an obvious pricing error.

Comparing related markets is useful only after checking these details. EventAlpha groups sibling contracts for discovery, but links back to the source venue because its current resolution rules remain authoritative.

Before citing a market, record its exact title, rules, deadline, current price, and observation time. Recheck the rules if the real-world situation changes or an edge case emerges. After closure, distinguish a market that is awaiting resolution from one that has formally settled.

This discipline makes prediction-market data more reproducible. It also avoids a common mistake: treating confidence about a real-world outcome as identical to confidence about how a particular contract will be adjudicated.