#预测市场 The liquidity trap in prediction markets is worth vigilance. After reading this analysis, I kept reflecting on one question: why did Romney's sudden movement on InTrade in 2012 not cause much impact, but Trump's advantage on Polymarket in 2024 has sparked widespread speculation?

The core difference lies in liquidity. High-liquidity markets have strong self-correction capabilities, and manipulation costs are too high to sustain; but when market participation is insufficient, a few large orders can create a short-term illusion. Once this illusion is amplified and spread by the media, it can trigger a chain reaction—not because it changes voters' minds, but because uncertainty itself becomes an amplifier.

Currently, I am especially cautious when following prediction market traders. Not doubting their analytical skills, but these markets are increasingly becoming the front line of information warfare. When you see a political prediction price suddenly spike, don’t rush to follow—first ask yourself a few questions: Is the market’s trading depth sufficient? Is there new polling data to support it? Is the price fluctuation symmetrically distributed?

The most practical advice is to choose prediction markets with high liquidity and many participants as reference signals, combined with traditional polls for cross-validation. When the price trend significantly diverges from other signals, it often indicates manipulation rather than a genuine change in expectations. This multi-dimensional risk assessment approach is essential for making informed follow-up decisions.