In my last post, I suggested that the most promising place to test and develop prediction markets is this: get ordinary firms to pay for mechanisms that induce their associates to advise their key decisions. I argued that what we need most is a regime of flexible trial and error, searching in the space of topics, participants, incentives, etc. for approaches that can add value here while avoiding the political disruptions that have plagued previous trials.
A handful of people who actually know things is plenty of traders. If you start out an LMSR with an initial best guess price, and then one person trades to move it to a more informed price, that's a win. How many traders to allow is a tradeoff between accuracy and privacy.
Aren't there too few participants in hiring decisions to make markets meaningful? In my experience only a handful of people (2-5) discuss final hiring decisions. What's the smallest size a decision market can have and still be useful? Or are you suggesting that these markets be open to any willing bettors?
If you view betting markets as a form of advice, why not try them up against other current forms of advice? Wherever someone is currently open to advice, or seeks out opinions, they should be open to betting markets.
I just typed in 'advice' into google, and what came up was dictionary definitions of the word and a large number of hits related to financial advice - precisely the area where there are already large scale markets, and people are looking for advice on what to make of the markets.. And I'm not sure what to make of that.
Oh, and the third thing was health advice, then travel advice, and consumer product advice.
Didn't I hear this same proposal years ago?