TLDR simplification:
YES = prediction markets good, pro-social on balance.

NO = prediction markets bad, anti-social on balance.

(Sorry for the confusing double-negative wording of the question)

It seems true to me the observation that many others have point out that there is an inherent connection between prediction markets and motivation. If someone has a stake in a market about future outcomes, they have motivation to affect those outcomes if they can.

If someone sees a market they believe they could affect, then it is a temptation they are faced with to enter into the market and deliberately affect the resolution.

Sometimes people describe this phenomenon as 'all prediction markets are assasination markets' to remind users that this phenomenon can be manipulated to bring about harmful antisocial outcomes in the world. I prefer the more neutral stance, since it is an effect which can equally easily be used for good or ill. It is not an tool biased towards negative uses, like a dirty bomb specifically designed to harm civilians. It is a neutral tool, a force for good or ill. Let us use it wisely.

Resolution criteria: If, during the open period of this market, I am presented with sufficiently persuasive evidence that the defence/offence balance of the motivational power of prediction markets is weighted towards anti-social ends then the market will resolve NO after a discussion period of approximately 6 months. [Edit: I made some confusing statements here about waiting for a six month countdown because I was worried the question would get no engagement. The question got plenty of good engagement, so the six month countdown has begun.]

The market resolves YES if it reaches the closing period without me having been persuaded that the persuasive power is more potent for antisocial uses.