I also don't think it's a defeater for prediction markets in general. However:

the net contribution of prediction markets to sports gambling success is probably pretty minimal.

I'm actually pretty unsure about this. One issue is that by having CFTC-regulated sports betting "prediction markets", federal preemption causes sports betting to expand into states that would otherwise prohibit it.

Also, I don't think the right question is "have prediction markets contributed to the success of sports gambling?" Rather, it's "has have the harms from sports gambling on prediction markets outweighed their benefits?" I don't have a strong view on this, but it seems plausible so far.

I think the biggest impact, though, is that now prediction markets are becoming strongly associated with sports betting, in a way that threatens their political viability as a project.

Did any of the boosters of real-money prediction markets correctly predict that prediction market platforms would be quickly dominated by thinly disguised sports gambling?

(I mean this question literally and earnestly, not as a snide takedown of prediction markets or their proponents)

Hi Chelsea. You should probably hire a trusts & estates lawyer to help you understand your rights with respect to the trust better.

Definitely agreed on that point!

I think typical financial advice is that emergency funds should be kept in very low-risk assets, like cash, money market funds, or short-term bonds. This makes sense because the probability that you need to draw on emergency funds is negatively correlated with equities: market downturns make it more likely that you will lose your job, or some sort of disaster could cause both market downturns and personal loss. You really don't want your emergency fund to lose value at the same time that you're most likely to need it.

One dynamic worth considering here is that a person with near-typical longtermist views about the future also likely believes that there are a large number of salient risks in the future, including sub-extinction AI catastrophes, pandemics, war with China, authoritarian takeover, "white collar bloodbath" etc.

It can be very psychologically hard to spend all day thinking about these risks without also internalizing that these risks may very well affect oneself and one's family, which in turn implies that typical financial advice and financial lifecycle planning are not well-tailored to the futures that longtermists think we might face. For example, the typical suggestion to save around 6 months in an emergency fund makes sense for the economy of the last hundred years, but if there is widespread white collar automation, what are the odds that there will be job disruption lasting longer than six months? If you think that your country may experience authoritarian takeover, might you want to save enough to buy residence elsewhere?

None of this excuses not making financial sacrifices. But I do think it's hard to simultaneously think "the future is really risky" and "there is a very achievable (e.g., <<$1M) amount of savings that would make me very secure."

Related recent discussion here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eMWsKbLFMy7ABdCLw/alfredo-parra-s-quick-takes?commentId=vo3jDMAhFFd2XQgYa

Ah sorry, I read your post too quickly :-)

I also want to point out that having better outside income-maximizing options makes you more financially secure than other people in your income bracket, all else equal, which pro tanto would give you more reason to donate than them.