Abstract
Everything comes down to chance. I explored this concept in my STS reading paper, which centers around the casino-fication of the world. I looked into this topic because I found it fascinating how easy and widespread the concept of prediction markets has become, enabling gambling on anything and everything. My technical project was focused on something very different. For my technical project, my group and I were tasked with making a small robot that could drive around and pick up bins of trash and dump them into receptacles, all of which could range drastically in size. These two seemingly disconnected topics share one core aspect: chance.
For my research project, I dove into the rise of Polymarket and how it impacts the ever-changing political atmosphere. My research question was: Is the ‘truth’ created by prediction markets accurate, and what are the ethical and legal risks of the rise of prediction markets? I felt this was a very relevant question to ask, as even news companies are partnering with Prediction Markets like Kalshi. To investigate these issues, I utilized Actor Network Theory to break down where these markets get the ‘truth’ from and how they impact society.
I dove into the algorithm that Polymarket uses to ascertain the ‘truth,’ the UMA Optimistic Oracle. I found that this so called ‘algorithm’ was actually extraordinary simple. It just assumes a user that deems a matter resolved is correct. If someone disputes this issue, the matter goes to a vote of shareholders of a Cryptocurrency, $UMA, based on the holdings of each user. This means the ‘truth’ of Polymarket is derived from the opinions of a few thousands of ‘crypto bros,’ and one specific holder of this currency could have upwards of 20% of the votes if they own enough of $UMA. Secondly, Polymarket’s impact on society was found to be very negative. While Polymarket claims to better the world by providing an opportunity to everyday people to prove their knowledge in a way that can benefit them monetarily. I found this to be completely untrue, though, as Polymarket just gives another opportunity to those with power and more information than the rest of us to further the gap in power and wealth.
My technical project was assigned by ASME: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Every year, this society creates a challenge for engineers to compete with each other and tackle a design problem. This year, that problem was to make a very small robot that picks up trash and dumps it in receptacles. The point of this project is focused on sustainability. The competition required we sort between trash and recycling, which is key in the race towards a sustainable world. The first step in this race is engineers like my team and I, thinking about ways to solve problems.
My group and I were able to make a device that met almost all requirements, except for the size factor. Every specification given to us were given in wide ranges. For example, our device ended up being 4.5 inches wide when the specification said it could be 7 inches, down to 4 inches minimum. We concluded that, regardless of engineering skill or budget, sacrifices had to be made. In our case, we sacrificed size to meet the specs of lifting bins full of steel cubes. There are many other ways to solve this problem, but the way our group chose was successful in grabbing bins and dumping them into receptacles.
These projects relate to each other in the fact that they both relied on chance. Our group took the chance that our width would be ok, as the majority of the range of minimum width requirements would suffice for our car. This relates to Polymarket in the fact that we risked getting points deducted in order to meet other requirements and complete the rest of the goals.
