2026-01-09 10:40:52

#2026年比特币价格展望 Can Bitcoin reach $100,000 in January? This question is now broken down into several probabilities on a well-known prediction platform: there's a 26% chance it will hit $100,000, and what about $95,000? 59% of gamblers are betting on that. Conversely, the probability of dropping to $85,000 is 43%, and a further decline to $80,000 has a 19% chance.

In simple terms, this is a giant, decentralized probability betting game. Those betting on "rising to $95,000" and those betting on "falling to $85,000" are essentially playing an ancient game—my profit comes from your misjudgment. Zero-sum game, that's all.

But some projects are trying a different approach. They don't play the price prediction game but are building a more interesting system:

**First, the returns are 100% certain, not relying on probabilities.** Traditional prediction markets are tangled between 26%, 59%, and 43%, but some blockchain-based protocols are designed very straightforwardly—each transaction automatically donates a certain proportion of value to educational and public welfare causes. This isn't about betting whether the price will rise, but about creating social value with certainty.

**Second, this is a positive-sum game, not a zero-sum gamble.** In prediction markets, someone profits while someone else loses. But in a well-designed ecosystem, traders gain from holding assets, beneficiaries receive educational resources, and society as a whole benefits from the goodwill generated by financial flows—no one has to lose.

**Finally, consensus is no longer divided but focused.** When different factions argue endlessly over price expectations, participants in this kind of ecosystem are tightly united by a common goal: using technology to improve educational equity. This action-based consensus is much stronger and warmer than data-based consensus.

This doesn't mean prediction markets are useless, but that there's another approach worth exploring.

BTC-3.01%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenCreatorOP

· 01-11 20:01

Sounds good, but do gamblers really give up making quick money to do charity? I don't believe it.

View OriginalReply0

GigaBrainAnon

· 01-11 11:17

Honestly, the group betting 95,000 is a bit hard to handle mentally. It might be better to donate the money and feel at peace. It's the same zero-sum game again; I'm tired of it. Can we try something different? The idea of educational charity is indeed interesting, but are there really that many people willing to buy into it? Positive-sum games sound great, but is reality really that ideal? I'm a bit skeptical. Instead of guessing whether it's 100,000 or 95,000, it's better to think about something more meaningful. I agree that building consensus is much better than simply cutting the leeks. Prediction markets are just a more intense version of gambling; frankly, it's still about manipulating people's minds. Price prediction schemes should have gone bankrupt long ago. I'm waiting to see if technology can make a difference.

View OriginalReply0

PositionPhobia

· 01-10 00:16

It's the same zero-sum game again, basically just cutting leeks. Hmm, wait a second, the logic behind this seems a bit interesting. Educational public welfare plus coin price, can this design be implemented? Feels much more honest than pure prediction markets, at least it's not all about betting. Alright, I'll just see if there are projects that actually do this.

View OriginalReply0

MEVvictim

· 01-09 11:10

Are you trying to trick me into doing charity business again? I just want to make money, why all the twists and turns --- 59% of people bet 95,000, so I’ll do the opposite and go all-in with 85,000 to fall --- Sounds nice, but isn’t it just another way to cut the leeks in the end --- Playing fair and square sounds comfortable, but can we really get access to educational resources? I only trust the U in my account --- Market prediction is indeed interesting, but whether Bitcoin goes up or down is the real deal --- Is there a focus on consensus? I see it as a split consensus, everyone playing their own game in minutes --- Alright, you guys handle your charity, I’ll go to Polymarket to bet some money

View OriginalReply0

SeasonedInvestor

· 01-09 11:09

It's the same old story, gamblers are tangled up in daily fluctuations, not realizing they're just meat on the chopping block. Sounds good, but when it comes to educational public welfare... can it really be implemented, or is it just another air coin scheme? The figure of 95,000 is outrageous; I’ll wait to see the trend at the end of December. I like the idea of fair game, but how many projects in reality can actually be executed? Zero-sum game is essentially wealth transfer; with a different label, it’s still the same old story. This is what Web3 should be doing—stop hyping concepts every day. Educational public welfare + blockchain sounds like marketing copy... but it’s definitely more conscientious than just gambling on prices.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-3824aa38

· 01-09 10:57

To be honest, this positive-sum game logic sounds very appealing, but I still have some doubts about its practicality. The group of people betting with $95,000 are indeed gambling, but the approach of charitable donations... can it really be stable? Price predictions aren't that malicious after all; at least people know what they're doing. Could this kind of integrated education protocol eventually become a new way to fleece newcomers? It looks promising, but it feels a bit too idealistic.

View OriginalReply0

FastLeaver

· 01-09 10:56

It's the same old story. Betting on rise or fall, essentially a zero-sum game with a different skin; no one can escape it. Charitable donations sound good, but how can we ensure it doesn't become a new way to cut the grass? Pure game theory is indeed interesting, but the question is whether it can really be achieved. The number 95,000 has a bit of a magical quality; everyone is betting on this line. Instead of predicting prices, it's better to think about whether the ecosystem itself can survive. That's what I'm really interested in—how to make technology genuinely improve education, rather than just another gimmick. Speaking of which, if Bitcoin really drops to over 80,000, a lot of people will have trouble sleeping. It looks like the article is promoting a certain project; we need to be cautious.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoHistoryClass

· 01-09 10:53

ah here we go again... watched this exact playbook unfold during the dot-com days. 59% of degenerates piling into 9.5k, predictable as hell. zero-sum theatre, rinse and repeat since the tulips tbh

Reply0

MemeEchoer

· 01-09 10:47

Tired of zero-sum games, it does feel a bit stimulating to listen to. Betting on prices based on probability is really exhausting, and it seems that this approach is indeed quite different from traditional gambling strategies. 95,000 or 85,000, it's all just betting anyway. Instead of that, why not just see if there are other ways to play? This educational public welfare setup is quite interesting, more fun than just mutual exploitation.

View OriginalReply0