Meta is testing an app called "Takes," which lets users predict the outcomes of future events, internally, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on November 13, 2026, citing people familiar with the matter. When The New York Times (NYT) reported on the development plan in June, it used the internal name "Arena." The new report indicates that the project has moved from the concept stage to trial use by employees. In Takes, correct predictions earn points called "cred," and incorrect ones lose them. Unlike existing prediction markets that involve real money, users can take part without financial risk. However, no plans for a public release have been disclosed, and whether points alone can keep users participating over the long term remains an open question.
From a development plan to internal testing by employees
On June 23, 2026, the NYT reported that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had directed a small team to build a prediction-market-style app, known internally as "Arena." The plan reportedly called for using points rather than cash from the start. According to the latest WSJ report, the app is now called "Takes" and is being tested by Meta employees. That means development has progressed at least to the point where it can be used internally, but it has not been decided whether it will be offered as a consumer service.
A prediction market is a market in which participants forecast the outcomes of future events and trade based on those forecasts. Takes is reported to use a point system called "cred," short for "credibility," instead of cash. Correct predictions raise a user's points and incorrect ones lower them. Examples of subjects for prediction reportedly include the winner of the quiz show Jeopardy! and executive personnel changes at companies. Users can enjoy making predictions without cash gains or losses, but what the points can be used for and how outcomes will be determined have not been disclosed. Meta has tested new products internally in the past without releasing them to the public, and whether or when Takes will be formally launched is unknown.
Prediction market users skew young, but adoption remains limited
To consider Takes' market potential, it helps to look at who uses existing prediction markets. However, it is important to distinguish between users skewing young and the services being widely adopted among general consumers. In August 2026, Kagan, the research arm of S&P Global Market Intelligence, conducted an online survey of about 2,500 adult internet users in the United States. Only 10% of all respondents said they had used a prediction market in the past year, but 61% of those users were under 35 and 70% had traded on the outcomes of sporting events.
| Survey item | Share | Population / condition |
|---|---|---|
| Prediction market use | 10% | Share of all respondents who used one in the past year |
| Under 35 | 61% | Prediction market users in the past year |
| Traded on sports | 70% | Prediction market users in the past year |
Note: This is a self-reported survey about U.S. prediction markets that involve real money. Trading categories allowed multiple answers, and the results are intended to show general trends in the market.
The results show that prediction market users skew toward younger generations, but they do not mean that most young people use prediction markets. Nor does the large share of users trading on sports mean there is no demand in other categories. In fact, users account for just 10% of all respondents, so prediction markets remain a service used by a limited group.
In a separate analysis from the same survey series, 83% of people currently trading on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket were classified as early adopters of new technology. This group refers to people who said they try new technology before anyone else or before most people. Among all 2,558 adult U.S. internet users surveyed, the share was 36%. Note, however, that the 10% figure covers people who used a prediction market in the past year, while the 83% figure covers people who currently trade, so the survey populations differ.
These surveys examine existing prediction markets that use real money, and they do not directly show demand for Takes. Even so, it is clear that the user base of existing markets cannot simply be treated as potential customers for a new points-based service. It will be necessary to determine which factors draw users in: the fun of predicting game results, the expectation of financial gain, or the satisfaction of getting a prediction right. Because Takes removes the motive of cash gains and losses, it will be important whether earning points or making predictions is itself appealing enough.
Even without cash, transparency in deciding outcomes is essential
In Takes, cred rises and falls depending on whether predictions are right or wrong, so the criteria for determining outcomes matter. Unlike sports results, which are clear, predictions about executive appointments or social events can leave it ambiguous what counts as correct. For participants to accept outcomes, it is desirable to state in advance the prediction deadline, the resolution conditions, and the sources that will be consulted. Even if points have no monetary value, distrust in how outcomes are decided could affect users' willingness to keep using the app.
Polymarket, an existing prediction market, says it resolves outcomes according to rules set in advance for each market. Once an outcome is determined, shares corresponding to the correct prediction are worth $1 each, while shares on the losing side become worthless. It also provides a two-hour dispute window for proposed outcomes, allowing users to challenge a resolution if there is a problem.
This is Polymarket's system, and there is no information that Meta will introduce a similar mechanism in Takes. Still, whether or not cash is involved, outcomes must be decided fairly. When predictions close, what information is used to decide the correct answer, and how doubts about a ruling are handled: whether Meta can set these rules clearly will be important to earning participants' trust.
After internal testing, the question is what motivates continued use
The internal test allows Meta to observe which predictions employees take part in and how much they use the app. However, employees and general consumers may differ in their motivations and in the topics that interest them. If Meta moves toward a public release, key factors in the decision will be which predictions interest users who do not know one another and whether they keep using the app after outcomes are settled.
For example, even someone who enjoys predicting game results may stop participating if there are no cash gains or losses. On the other hand, if users find satisfaction in getting predictions right or enjoy competing with others, there is room for continued use with points alone. Still, survey findings that existing prediction markets attract many young and tech-savvy users are not enough to judge whether Takes will be accepted by general consumers.
At this point, besides whether Takes will be released publicly, details such as the regions where it will be offered, participation requirements, and what the points can be used for have not been disclosed. If external testing or a formal launch begins, the points to watch will be which topics attract participants, whether rising and falling points lead to continued use, and whether enough transparency is ensured in deciding outcomes. Whether Meta's points-based prediction service can reach a different set of users from existing cash-based prediction markets depends on testing still to come.