Prediction markets serve a dual purpose. Beyond being a product, they are a strategic wedge to enter massive, untapped markets like California and Texas. Because they operate under a different regulatory framework, they provide a foothold where traditional sports betting is banned.

The explosive growth of prediction markets is driven by regulatory arbitrage. They capture immense value from the highly-regulated sports betting industry by operating under different, less restrictive rules for 'prediction markets,' despite significant product overlap.

When CEOs face pressure to speak on political issues, acting as a unified group, like the 69 Minnesota CEOs did, provides safety in numbers. A coalition is harder for political actors to single out and punish than an individual executive.

When trying to influence external partners, start with those most eager to collaborate. This 'coalition of the willing' builds momentum, helps set standards, and creates social pressure for larger, slower-moving players to join the initiative.

When facing government pressure for deals that border on state capitalism, a single CEO gains little by taking a principled stand. Resisting alone will likely lead to their company being punished while competitors comply. The pragmatic move is to play along to ensure long-term survival, despite potential negative effects for the broader economy.

The NBA fosters a community where marketing leaders from competing teams openly share ideas. Because teams primarily operate in different local markets, they are not direct commercial rivals. This "coopetition" allows them to learn from each other's successes and failures, elevating the marketing of the entire league.

While gaining traction, prediction markets are on a collision course with regulators. Their expansion into domains resembling sports betting is unsustainable without government oversight and revenue sharing. The current "lawless" phase, where they claim not to be gambling, is unlikely to last, leading to a stalled 2026.

When building a product with multiple funding customers and stakeholders, use a structured workshop process. Present a proposal, clarify questions, gather reactions, amend, and then vote. This formal process forces alignment and achieves consensus, even with competing interests.

By first helping government agencies craft regulations, a startup gains deep expertise and credibility. This naturally leads to high-value inbound interest from private sector firms needing help complying with those same regulations, creating a powerful two-sided market flywheel with built-in demand.