Couple of things in there that troubled me, especially the defense that a successful predictor can use proceeds to help victims of bad stuff:

Critics of prediction markets also overlook the possibility that the money bettors earn can be used to mitigate the harms of the very disasters they predict. Suppose someone correctly predicts that a hurricane will make landfall and profits from a prediction market as a result. They now have additional resources that can be used to mitigate the suffering caused by the hurricane. They can donate to emergency relief, help fund rebuilding efforts, support local clinics, or contribute to flood mitigation projects. So if you’re concerned that a catastrophe is likely to occur, making an accurate prediction and allocating your winnings to help those harmed by the catastrophe is far more productive than simply watching it unfold.

Gambling is not positive-sum; the winners and losers put up more in advance, minus platform/house fee, and then the winner walk away with less than sum[winners+losers]... so in expectation, given that everyone wanted to alleviate bad shit happening, those suffering from e.g., hurricanes would be strictly better off if both winners and losers abstained from gambling and just donated to relief.

THe moral outrage at prediction market probably isn't just that, but also the commodification of previously non-commoditized objects (hashtag Beckert...).

Also, I can't stop thinking that while fun for me, it's kind of a useless thing. Life is better if nobody plays betting markets, no?