The idea of futarchy is closely related to the idea of prediction markets (PM). Since the ancient times, people have been betting money on a variety of issues from global trends to minor domestic issues. Sometimes the outcomes of these disputes depend on a chance, sometimes on a specific knowledge in sports (bets on competitions), economics (futures, options, other derivatives) and other areas, and sometimes they are based on the general erudition and intelligence of participants. Read more about the prediction markets here.
Sometimes, the purpose of these bets is not so much to earn money but is in searching for and justifying the truth, as well as checking the strength of the opponent’s beliefs. As a rule, the more money a bet setter is willing to risk - the higher their confidence in their rightness. In other words, PMs sometimes go beyond mere games of cash, and this significantly increases their social value. With sufficient statistics, the results of forecasts for prediction markets can be used to study real (responsibly supported by finances) public opinion, as well as the ability of citizens to understand the trends and consequences of certain phenomena, thereby contributing to the development of social sciences.
It is possible that if political PMs in the 20th century had been as developed as financial ones, humanity would have avoided major upheavals. Many disasters in history occurred due to a lack of human erudition in social and political issues (and lack of understanding of the consequences of various political tendencies). Perhaps history would have developed more humanely if monetary bets on political issues were common practice, thus bringing political literacy to the masses. It is not surprising that the well-known economists of the first half of the 20th century — Ludwig Mises (“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”) and Friedrich Hayek (“The Use of Knowledge in Society”) were among the first serious apologists of universal PMs (those allowing questions of any kind, not just financial ones). The views of both were largely determined by their frustration with the political events of their time.