Rorie Simpson

Building | MIT CS & Econ

[Rorie Simpson @RorieSimpson]

5) And on patients losing trust: prediction markets do something new with information, but the information exposure itself isn't new for patients. Sell-side analyst reports, biotech newsletters, and X threads already publicly speculate on trial probabilities. A prediction market just consolidates that speculation into a single number where people have money behind their views. The question isn't whether patients see probability estimates on their trial. That ship sailed. It's whether you want those estimates scattered across sell-side reports and newsletters, or in a market that's transparent about what it is.

[Rorie Simpson @RorieSimpson]

@NicholasZaorsky @NEJM @JAMA_current @endpointarena @Kalshi @Polymarket 4) I'd say the strongest point you have isn't "prediction markets are bad", it's likely just "regulatory infrastructure isn't ready for them yet". That I'd agree with

[Rorie Simpson @RorieSimpson]

Agreed. There's also a capital formation angle worth thinking through: today, a weak Drug A effectively taxes a company's ability to fund Drug B, because investors bullish only on B have to take both or walk. Drug-level shorting lets them isolate exposure.

Unclear whether that's net positive. It could route capital more efficiently to good programs, or it could remove a forcing function that in theory pressures management to kill weak drugs.

Probably depends on whether the public price signal actually changes pharma behavior, which has a mixed track record.