US survey finds prediction market users face 79% loss rate, especially borrowers
A new U.S. survey by BadCredit.org found that prediction market users are largely losing money. In the past year, 79% of surveyed prediction-market participants reported losses. More than a quarter (27%) said they lost over $500, while only 21% reported no losses.
The risk was higher for people using leverage. Among borrowers—funding bets via a credit card, personal loan, or other debt—88% reported losses, versus 69% for non-borrowers. The survey also found 51% of users used borrowed funds, underlining how debt can turn a speculative outcome into a larger repayment cost.
Motives skewed toward income. About 53% entered prediction markets for money-related reasons (44% for extra income and 9% due to financial pressure). Entertainment/curiosity accounted for 27%, with smaller shares citing social media or recommendations.
The study is based on self-reported results from an online panel of 1,000 U.S. adults (raw, unweighted responses), not audited platform transaction data.
Regulatory scrutiny is ongoing. The CFTC and state gambling rules both influence U.S. prediction markets, with lawmakers and regulators focusing on customer protection and market integrity, including disputes over sports-style contracts and odds presentation.
Bearish
The news highlights that prediction markets are producing heavy user losses (79%), especially among participants using borrowed funds (88% loss rate). For crypto traders, this is relevant because prediction markets often settle with crypto-linked assets, attract retail speculation, and can contribute to broader risk sentiment. If leveraged participants absorb losses, it can reduce speculative inflows, increase the likelihood of churn and reputational backlash, and potentially tighten perceived risk appetite around event-driven crypto derivatives.
In the short term, traders may treat this as a caution signal, leading to lower appetite for high-risk bets connected to prediction-market flows. In the long term, persistent negative outcomes plus ongoing U.S. regulatory scrutiny (CFTC/state conflicts and customer protection discussions) can raise compliance and product-availability uncertainty for platforms and users. Similar past cycles show that when retail losses become widely reported, volatility often shifts from “new speculative participation” toward existing liquidity, while sentiment turns more defensive until clearer rules or better market design emerges.