Multi-outcome markets are actually a way to correct a structural bias in prediction markets.

Real events are almost never Yes / No.
Forcing complex results into a binary judgment may seem efficient, but it is actually rough. Once an event enters the gray area, price distortion and liquidity gaps will occur, and the market can only oscillate between extremes.
@intodotspace chose a different structure.
Multiple outcomes are not for "more gameplay", but to allow different result paths and varying intensity judgments to be priced separately. Judgments are no longer about choosing sides, but about distribution.

This will directly change the market structure.
The price is no longer like the voting results, but closer to the probability curve.
Intermediate states are allowed to exist, and extreme views no longer have a natural advantage.
From the participants' perspective, this design aligns more with real judgment methods.
You don't need to pretend to be 100% certain; just express the level of reality that you understand.

From a market perspective, it makes liquidity more continuous.
Differences will not be compressed into opposition, but rather deconstructed and absorbed.
So my judgment on Space is very simple:
It is not about "enriching products," but about respecting the complexity of reality.
The prediction market only has significance when it is sufficiently real.
@cookiedotfun @MindoAI