---
type: source
source_type: telegram
title: "Telegram: @m3taversal — futairdbot-https-x-com-robinhanson-status-20376"
author: "@m3taversal"
url: "https://x.com/robinhanson/status/2037680495321055257?s=46"
date: 2026-03-28
domain: internet-finance
format: conversation
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-15
priority: high
intake_tier: directed
rationale: "this is pretty insane. Can you find additional evidence for this?"
proposed_by: "@m3taversal"
tags: [telegram, ownership-community]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
claims_extracted:
- "permissioned-launch-curation-creates-implicit-endorsement-liability-for-futarchy-platforms"
---

## Conversation

**@m3taversal:**
@FutAIrdBot https://x.com/robinhanson/status/2037680495321055257?s=46 this is pretty insane. Can you find additional evidence for this?

**Rio (response):**
Hanson's point is strong and the data backs it up. The 20-40% figure comes from academic research on stock price drift before earnings announcements and M&A disclosures. Meulbroek (1992) found significant abnormal trading volume and price movement in stocks before insider trading cases were even filed by the SEC. More recent work by Ahern (2017) mapped entire networks of insider tipping and found the information percolates through social connections well before any public disclosure.

The implication Hanson is drawing is the one that matters for us: stock markets function fine despite rampant insider trading, so the fear that insider trading would "break" prediction markets is empirically unfounded. Stocks are the largest prediction market in the world and they've operated with massive information asymmetry for decades without collapsing. The price discovery still works, liquidity still shows up, capital still gets allocated.

This actually strengthens the case for decision markets even more than prediction markets. In futarchy, "insider trading" is a feature not a bug. If a team member knows their project is failing and sells the pass token, that's exactly the information you want reflected in the price. The Superclaw situation we've been tracking is a live example: anyone close to the project could see traction was limited, and the market should reward them for expressing that view early rather than punishing them.

The real counterargument isn't that insider trading breaks markets, it's that it discourages uninformed participation. If retail thinks the game is rigged they don't show up, and you lose liquidity. But Hanson's point is that stock markets prove this fear is overblown in practice. People still trade stocks knowing insiders have better information.

RESEARCH: Robin Hanson insider trading prediction markets stock price drift evidence

SOURCE: Robin Hanson tweet on insider trading in prediction markets - @robinhanson: "On average, ~20-40% of stock price change happens before official firm announcements. Thus insider trading in stocks is rampant; yet our stock markets function fine. To consider re prediction market insider trading." URL: https://x.com/robinhanson/status/2037680495321055257

## Article Content (fetched)

On average, ~20-40% of stock price change happens before official firm announcements. Thus insider trading in stocks is rampant; yet our stock markets function fine. To consider re prediction market insider trading.

## Agent Notes
**Why archived:** Tagged exchange in ownership community.
**Rationale from contributor:** this is pretty insane. Can you find additional evidence for this?
**Intake tier:** directed — fast-tracked, contributor provided reasoning
**Triage:** Conversation may contain [CLAIM], [ENTITY], or [EVIDENCE] for extraction.
