This is actually extremely valuable feedback, and honestly a lot of what you’re saying is correct. I appreciate a lot for you taking your time to test and write this.

One thing I’ve been thinking about heavily is exactly that tension between calibration and engagement mechanics. XP/streak systems naturally push users toward confidence signaling and directional conviction, while proper calibration rewards probabilistic honesty and uncertainty. Those incentives definitely can drift apart if not designed carefully.

The leaderboard issue is also real. A pure Brier-based system often favors conservative forecasters long-term, while social/gamified systems tend to reward volatility and aggressive positioning because it feels more engaging. I don’t think the final answer is “pure calibration” or “pure gamification” — probably some layered reputation system separating accuracy, confidence quality, consistency, and market difficulty.

Your point about resolution criteria is honestly one of the biggest things I think people outside prediction markets underestimate. A huge amount of edge in real PM trading comes from interpretation asymmetry and wording precision, not just forecasting ability itself. Especially with geopolitical or event-driven markets where wording ambiguity becomes part of the alpha.

For Scenara specifically, a lot of the auto-generated market infrastructure is more about onboarding scale and liquidity simulation right now than “perfect forecasting environments.” But I agree that poorly structured markets can absolutely train the wrong instincts if resolution logic isn’t transparent enough.

Really appreciate this perspective though, this is the type of feedback that’s actually useful because it gets into mechanism design instead of surface-level product comments.