Maduro, Venezuela 2026: Regime Stability, Prediction Markets, and the Political Crisis

Prediction markets didn’t “call” Venezuela’s January 2026 shock—they got steamrolled by it. For months, the flagship contracts on Nicolás Maduro’s near‑term exit traded like sleepy, low‑probability tail risks. Then the U.S. captured Maduro, a set of contracts snapped to near‑certain “Yes,” and the more important question immediately shifted from who holds the presidential sash to who actually controls the state.

That distinction matters because, in Caracas, power has never been just a single office. It’s a mesh of the PSUV party apparatus, the armed forces and intelligence services, state oil and customs revenue channels, and coercive auxiliaries (colectivos and militias). The market’s Maduro‑centric framing was always an imperfect proxy for that system. After the capture, it’s arguably the wrong instrument.

What the flagship market says (and what it doesn’t)

Polymarket’s high‑volume series “Maduro out by…?” became the public scoreboard for regime‑change expectations. The contract for “Maduro out by Dec 31, 2026” is now effectively a fait accompli: once Maduro was taken into U.S. custody in January 2026, “out by end‑2026” stopped being a political forecast and started being a bookkeeping exercise.

But the regime didn’t fall in step with the man. Traders who want to express a view on state continuity have increasingly moved to successor framing—markets that ask whether Chavismo (the PSUV + security coalition) still controls the presidency and the governing apparatus through end‑2026.

The market-implied base case for end‑2026

Across the most‑watched post‑capture contracts, the pricing tells a coherent story: Maduro personally is “out,” but Chavista control is still the base case. In other words, markets are separating “leadership decapitation” from “regime replacement,” and assigning materially different probabilities to each.

That split is the analytical spine of this article. If you only watch the Maduro contract, you’ll conclude regime change is basically done. If you watch Chavista‑control contracts, you’ll see the market arguing that the system can (and likely will) reconstitute itself without him—at least through the 2026 horizon.

Why January 2026 broke the market’s mental model

The January 2026 capture is a clean example of why prediction markets can be simultaneously sharp on resolution criteria and fragile on the right question. Traders weren’t irrational to price “Maduro out next month” low; authoritarian leaders often survive repeated scares. What they mispriced was the probability of an externally imposed discontinuity—and, just as importantly, the probability that such a discontinuity would not translate into immediate control transfer inside Venezuela.

As CFR put it after the operation: “Maduro is gone but hardline repressive elements of the regime are still there and, at least for the moment, in control.” That is exactly the wedge markets are now forced to price.

The unit of analysis for 2026: “Chavista regime stability”

For writing and trading, the better object is regime stability, not Maduro’s job title. A stable regime can replace a figurehead, reshuffle portfolios, and keep governing—especially when coercive institutions and rent streams remain intact.

So the central question for 2026 becomes:

• What structural factors keep Chavismo resilient (military loyalty, patronage, illicit rents, fragmented opposition, international shields)?
• What could still trigger collapse or a negotiated transition in 2026 (elite splits, fiscal shock, security fragmentation, external bargaining failure)?
• Where did markets and experts get it wrong before January 2026—on timing, catalysts, or the difference between “removing Maduro” and “removing the regime”?

Where we go from here

The rest of this piece follows the logic markets are now pricing—sometimes explicitly, sometimes accidentally:

1. the political timeline into the capture, 2) the economic constraints and partial stabilization, 3) military and security cohesion, 4) opposition capacity and negotiation leverage, 5) international alignment and sanctions, 6) scenario trees for 2026, and 7) what all of that means for positioning in “regime change” versus “regime continuity” markets.

The through‑line analysts should keep in mind

By the time markets started treating “Maduro out” as a tradable proposition, Venezuela had already moved through three reinforcing cycles: (1) institutional hollowing, (2) street challenge and repression, and (3) economic freefall followed by partial stabilization. Each cycle changed what “regime change risk” meant.

In Venezuela, overthrow expectations tend to spike when mass mobilization and elite contestation overlap—e.g., a protest wave coincides with credible signals of military defection, international recognition shifts, or a hard institutional break. When those ingredients separate (big protests but no elite split, or elite infighting without streets), the regime has historically absorbed the shock.

What follows is the minimum timeline needed to interpret today’s regime‑stability odds—and why, by late 2025, most observers saw a consolidated but brittle authoritarian system heading into 2026.

---

2013–2016: succession, legitimacy problems, and the start of economic collapse

2013 (Chávez dies; Maduro inherits the machine). Hugo Chávez’s death forced an accelerated succession that immediately weakened the myth of invincibility. Maduro won the presidency in a tight contest, and from the start leaned more heavily on the PSUV’s organizational control and the security apparatus than on personal charisma.

2014–2016 (first protest cycle meets a collapsing economy). Large protests in 2014 (“La Salida”) revealed two patterns that would repeat:

• The opposition could put people in the streets.
• The state could outlast them through arrests, selective violence, and intimidation, while keeping the top military command aligned.

At the same time, the economy began its historic breakdown. Inflation shifted from already‑high levels into the early stages of hyperinflation, and shortages became politically central: food and medicine access increasingly functioned as a control lever as much as a social crisis.

---

2017: constitutional rupture and the “authoritarian hardening” year

2017 (constitutional crisis). After the opposition won the National Assembly in 2015, the regime’s response was not accommodation—it was institutional displacement. The conflict climaxed in 2017 when Maduro’s camp used the Supreme Court and then a government‑controlled Constituent Assembly to effectively neutralize the opposition legislature.

This is the year many analysts date Venezuela’s shift from a competitive/hybrid system into more openly authoritarian rule, defined by:

• captured courts that validated executive moves,
• an electoral authority (CNE) increasingly seen as a regime instrument,
• and expanding internal‑security powers.

Overthrow expectations (then and now). 2017 also produced one of the largest protest waves in the Maduro era. Historically, this is exactly the kind of period where “Maduro exit” expectations tend to jump—because street pressure is persistent and elite cohesion is visibly stressed. But the regime proved a key lesson for odds‑setting: protests without a senior‑level security break are usually not enough.

---

2018–2019: disputed re‑election, dual power, and the peak of “Maduro could fall” narratives

2018 (disputed re‑election). Maduro’s 2018 victory was widely denounced as unfair, with key rivals barred, jailed, or exiled and major opposition parties boycotting. Politically, this converted a governance crisis into an explicit legitimacy crisis—the groundwork for international non‑recognition and intensified sanctions.

2019 (Guaidó declares interim presidency). In January, National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president, quickly gaining recognition from the U.S. and many allies. This created the closest thing Venezuela has had to a “dual sovereignty” moment in the last decade.

Why 2019 mattered for regime‑change odds: it combined four ingredients that markets (and commentators) read as regime‑threatening:

1. mass demonstrations,
2. international recognition shift,
3. sanctions escalation targeting core revenue channels, and
4. at least the appearance of military wavering.

But the decisive variable—top command defection—did not materialize. The regime absorbed the shock, and expectations mean‑reverted.

---

2020–2021: institutional closure via elections and selective, lower‑temperature repression

2020 (parliamentary takeover). The regime organized legislative elections boycotted by much of the opposition amid claims of unfair rules and party interventions. The result was a pro‑government National Assembly that helped the state close the remaining institutional door the opposition had held.

This mattered structurally: once the legislature was aligned, “transition” strategies based on constitutional succession (like the 2019 interim presidency theory) lost operational traction.

2021 (regional elections under asymmetry). The opposition returned to participate in regional and local elections, but under conditions that favored the state: media dominance, disqualifications, and a playing field shaped by captured institutions. PSUV retained broad territorial control.

What this did to overthrow expectations: 2020–2021 shifted the perceived pathway from “mass uprising + institutional handover” to “negotiated concessions or elite fracture.” In archived trading discussions around Venezuela, this is the period where “Maduro out soon” type pricing tended to cool: the regime looked less like it might be toppled and more like it might be managed.

---

2022–2023: partial economic stabilization, dollarization, and a more durable (if uglier) equilibrium

After the 2014–2020 collapse, Venezuela entered a phase of uneven stabilization:

• widespread de facto dollarization improved urban consumption for those with access to dollars or remittances,
• inflation fell dramatically from hyperinflation peaks (while remaining extremely high),
• and oil output began a slow recovery off the floor.

This did not “solve” the crisis—but it changed political dynamics. Stabilization can reduce immediate revolt pressure (fewer acute shortages in some areas) while preserving authoritarian control through selective repression and legal harassment.

At the same time, the state expanded the legal/administrative toolkit used against civil society—raising the cost of organizing by criminalizing NGOs and activism and narrowing the space for collective action.

---

2024–2025: a stolen presidential election, third‑term inauguration, and renewed U.S. confrontation

2024 (disputed presidential vote). The 2024 election replayed the legitimacy problem on a larger stage. The opposition—forced to reorganize after bans and disqualifications—claimed victory and produced precinct‑level evidence, while the CNE declared Maduro the winner and the UN publicly criticized the process.

2025 (third‑term inauguration + hardening external pressure). Maduro’s January 2025 inauguration for a third term locked in what many observers already treated as the operating reality: elections were not a credible transfer mechanism. In parallel, U.S. policy hardened again in 2025—tightening the external pressure cycle and pushing Venezuela back toward open confrontation.

Institutional state by late 2025:

• courts and electoral authority functioned as regime enforcers,
• the National Assembly no longer offered institutional leverage,
• coercive actors (armed forces, intelligence, pro‑government armed groups) were deeply embedded in political‑economic rents,
• and dissent was contained more by pre‑emption and criminalization than by continuous mass violence.

This is why late‑2025 consensus descriptions often sounded paradoxical: Venezuela looked consolidated, yet still fragile—because consolidation depended on coercion, rents, and a narrowed economic recovery, not broad legitimacy.

That “consolidated‑but‑brittle” baseline is what made the early‑2026 decapitation raid such a shock to both commentators and traders: it was an externally imposed discontinuity hitting a system that had become skilled at surviving internal shocks.

3. From hyperinflation to fragile rebound: how Venezuela’s economic collapse shapes regime risk

Venezuela’s political risk in 2026 can’t be read straight off a protest calendar or a sanctions headline. It is, to a large extent, a macro story: how an authoritarian coalition survives after an economic implosion, and what “stability” looks like when the state is broke, the currency is distrusted, and millions of citizens have exited.

The important analytical move for regime‑risk writing (and for trading) is to separate two ideas that often get conflated:

• Humanitarian catastrophe (which has been undeniable), and
• Near‑term regime replacement risk (which the market generally priced as lower than many commentators expected).

The reason markets leaned toward “muddling through” before 2026 is not that conditions were improving in some broad welfare sense. It’s that the economy shifted from a free‑fall dynamic—where shortages and price chaos can catalyze sudden political breaks—into a managed, ugly equilibrium that reduced immediate overthrow pressure while deepening long‑run legitimacy decay.

Inflation: from chronic high inflation to hyperinflation—and then to “merely” very high

By the time Maduro inherited the presidency, inflation was already destabilizing. In 2013, Venezuela was running roughly 40–50% inflation—high enough to erode purchasing power and credibility, but not yet the kind of monetary chaos that melts a state’s transactional capacity.

Then came one of the world’s most severe hyperinflations. Official and reconstructed series differ, but the direction and magnitude are unambiguous:

• By 2016–2017, inflation had moved into the hundreds and then high hundreds percent range.
• In 2018, estimates often cited from Central Bank data put annual inflation around 130,060%.

Hyperinflation matters politically because it’s not just “prices rising.” It breaks the everyday governability of a country: wage contracts collapse, public‑sector pay becomes meaningless, cash becomes absurd, and the regime must choose between printing money (to fund patronage and security) and watching its currency die.

Yet the most important development for regime‑risk pricing was what happened next: sharp disinflation.

From 2021 onward, Venezuela effectively exited the peak hyperinflation regime—largely via an improvised mix of monetary restraint, reduced bolívar liquidity, and widespread de facto dollarization. By 2024–2025, inflation was still extreme, but no longer a daily existential accelerant in the same way.

Here’s why recent inflation numbers look inconsistent across sources:

• Some trackers show inflation “stabilizing” in a broad ~25–60% annual range depending on basket and methodology.
• Trading Economics reports ~172% year‑on‑year in April 2025, still one of the highest in the world.

For writers, the correct framing is: Venezuela disinflated from hyperinflation to chronic very‑high inflation—a huge improvement for transactional life in dollarized zones, but not a return to normal.

GDP: an 80–90% real collapse, then a rebound from the floor

If inflation tells you how daily life and state capacity broke, GDP tells you how much “country” was left.

International institution estimates (IMF‑aligned series are the standard reference) imply:

• Real output fell roughly 80–90% from early‑2010s highs through the 2020 trough.
• In nominal dollars, the contraction is equally stark: GDP falling from about $373B (2012) to roughly $43B (2020).
• The rebound is real but partial: IMF DataMapper (WEO) puts 2025 nominal GDP around $79.9B—nearly double the trough, but still a fraction of the pre‑collapse economy.

This matters for regime survival because an economy that’s collapsing at 20–30% per year creates a different political environment than an economy growing 5–10% off a devastated base. The rebound doesn’t create legitimacy—but it can reduce the probability of acute, synchronized breakdowns (bank runs, supply collapses, total wage implosion) that are fertile ground for elite splits.

Oil: the regime’s lifeline—and the variable markets watch most closely

Venezuela’s regime is not financed like a normal state. Oil is not “a sector.” It’s the core rent stream that funds patronage, security loyalty, imports, and (when possible) selective social relief.

Production fell dramatically:

• Around 2.3–2.5 million barrels/day (mb/d) in 2013.
• Collapsing to roughly 0.4–0.5 mb/d by 2020.

Then, after the trough, output recovered:

• By late 2025, Trading Economics shows crude production around 1.142 mb/d (Nov 2025)—almost a tripling from the bottom.

Even at ~1.1 mb/d, Venezuela is nowhere near its old petro‑abundance. But politically, that recovery can be enough to do three stabilizing things:

1. Pay the security ecosystem (formal and informal) more reliably.
2. Fund imports that keep urban consumption from collapsing again.
3. Buy time—which authoritarian systems convert into institutional tightening.

This is a key reason many traders treated “sudden collapse by 2026” as a tail risk: oil didn’t need to boom; it just needed to stop bleeding.

Social distress didn’t disappear—it got reorganized

The stabilization story is often misread as “conditions improved.” A more accurate description is: hardship became less uniformly explosive and more structurally entrenched.

Indicators from major surveys and summaries capture the scale:

• Poverty peaked above 90% at the worst point (household surveys such as ENCOVI are typically cited for these peaks).
• Gallup reports about 60% of adults struggled to afford food at times in the prior year (2025 reporting).
• Venezuela has one of the world’s largest displacement crises: roughly 8 million migrants since 2015.

Politically, mass emigration is not just a humanitarian statistic—it’s a regime‑risk variable:

• It reduces the number of people able to sustain high‑risk street mobilization.
• It increases remittances for some households (a cushioning mechanism that can lower protest intensity in specific communities).
• It exports opposition energy into diaspora politics, which matters for sanctions and recognition, but less for immediate coercive balance inside Venezuela.

The “dual economy” effect: less immediate overthrow pressure, more long‑term legitimacy erosion

Dollarization and partial recovery created a two‑track country:

• In parts of Caracas and other cities, USD pricing and remittances restored a consumer layer—enough to lower the feeling of total collapse.
• For the majority—public‑sector workers, informal labor, rural communities—the core crisis remained: weak income, weak services, and uneven access to dollars.

That duality is stabilizing in the short run (fewer universal shortages), but corrosive over time:

• It normalizes inequality and creates visible “winners” near power.
• It erodes the regime’s historic claim to social inclusion.
• It increases the likelihood of slow legitimacy decay rather than a single decisive rupture.

Why the macro path led markets toward “muddling through” before 2026

Prediction markets tend to price resolution events (a leader exiting office) more sharply than state continuity. Still, even leader‑exit odds are sensitive to macro “break” risk.

Before the January 2026 capture, the economic picture supported a common trader heuristic: catastrophic welfare outcomes don’t automatically produce regime change when coercion remains funded and the opposition cannot force elite defection.

In practice, traders and many experts were implicitly modeling:

• Disinflation as a reduction in “panic conditions,”
• A low‑base GDP rebound as a reduction in immediate systemic breakdown risk,
• Oil recovery as a restoration of minimal fiscal oxygen,
• Migration as a drain on sustained domestic mobilization.

Even after the shock of Maduro’s capture, that macro logic remains relevant for 2026: a successor Chavista core can plausibly hold the state together if the rent‑and‑coercion machine remains financed and coordinated.

As CFR summarized the post‑capture reality in a line that doubles as a market‑pricing thesis: “Maduro is gone but hardline repressive elements of the regime are still there and, at least for the moment, in control.”

The most useful way to read Venezuela’s regime stability through 2026 is not “How unpopular is the government?” but “Who holds the guns—and do they believe they survive a transition?” On that score, the armed forces, the intelligence services, and the regime’s armed auxiliaries have been the real pivot for more than a decade. They are also the reason most serious country analysts assigned low odds to a classic coup—an abrupt, internally driven removal of the executive followed by an institutional handover—at any point through 2026.

How chavismo rewired the armed forces

Chávez began—and Maduro deepened—a long-running transformation of the Venezuelan Armed Forces (FANB) from a professional institution into a political–economic pillar of the regime.

1) Politicized promotions and “bolivarianization.” Promotions became less about operational competence and more about demonstrated loyalty to the project. Doctrine and identity were recast in Bolivarian terms, and the military was repeatedly described as “anti-imperialist” and inseparable from the revolution. In practice, this reduced the probability that a top commander could present an anti-regime move as “constitutional restoration” and expect broad buy-in.

2) An expanded general officer corps. Analysts frequently noted that Maduro used promotions as patronage and as a dilution tactic—creating an unusually large senior cohort (often reported in the hundreds and sometimes “over a thousand” counting active and retired generals). A bloated, patronage-based top tier makes coordination harder: too many stakeholders have too much to lose, and too few can trust one another.

3) Rotations designed to prevent power consolidation. Rapid reshuffling of commands limits the emergence of an autonomous military baron with stable control over a unit, territory, or revenue stream. It also makes plotting harder because personal networks are constantly disrupted.

4) Overlap with party, state, and state companies. The regime systematically blurred the line between soldier, party cadre, and economic manager by placing officers in ministries, governorships, and state firms. That overlap matters in an authoritarian system because it transforms a “coup” from a political act into a direct threat against the entire elite’s material position and legal exposure.

Promotions, patronage, and the price of loyalty

If coercion is the spine of regime continuity, patronage is the muscle. Venezuela’s senior officer corps has long been tied to the regime not just through ideology, but through access to lucrative postings.

The best way to describe the bargain is simple: the regime provides rents and protection; the security elite provides continuity. In a sanctions-constrained state, the remaining high-margin choke points become especially valuable:

• Oil and energy administration (appointments and oversight roles around PDVSA-linked nodes and services)
• Food imports and distribution (scarcity-era control over procurement and logistics)
• Customs, ports, and borders (fees, smuggling opportunities, and enforcement discretion)
• Mining and informal extractive economies (gold and the Orinoco Mining Arc ecosystem)

These are not just “benefits.” They are a binding mechanism: senior officers’ incomes, patronage networks, and sometimes personal safety (from prosecution at home or abroad) become directly linked to regime continuity.

Plots and purges: failure becomes a governance tool

The Venezuelan state has repeatedly confronted real, imagined, and opportunistic conspiracies—each time using the episode to further harden internal control.

• 2014 (Air Force generals arrested). During the protest wave, authorities announced the arrest of Air Force generals accused of plotting a coup. Whether viewed as a genuine plot or a politically framed crackdown, the outcome was the same: arrests, fear, and a reminder that dissent could be treated as treason.

• 2018 (recurring alleged conspiracies). 2018 produced multiple “plot” narratives (often linked to air force and national guard officers) followed by arrests and dismissals. This period reinforced the regime’s counterintelligence posture and increased the perceived probability that any coup network would be penetrated early.

• April 30, 2019 (failed uprising). The Guaidó/Leopoldo López effort to catalyze a split around La Carlota air base failed quickly and publicly. That failure mattered more than its size: it demonstrated that even under maximum international attention and mass street mobilization, the regime could keep key units aligned.

• 2020 (Operation Gideon). The seaborne incursion attempt—linked to dissident soldiers and a private contractor—was a gift to the security state. It showcased intelligence penetration, provided justification for broader surveillance, and helped the regime frame internal dissent as foreign-backed terrorism.

• Early 2020s (continuous low-level arrests). The post-Gideon pattern became routinized: periodic announcements of dismantled cells, arrests of officers or ex-officers, and further promotions of loyalists. The political function was deterrence: a steady signal that counterintelligence is present everywhere.

Collectively, these cycles help explain why experts discounted a “clean coup.” In Venezuela, coup attempts do not just fail—they tend to generate institutional learning and tighter screening, raising the barrier for the next attempt.

The layered coercive ecosystem: militias and colectivos

A classic coup assumes that if you flip enough regular units—especially around Caracas—you can seize the state. Chavismo complicated that assumption by building layers around the formal military.

The Bolivarian Militia operates as a mass auxiliary force subordinated to the defense structure but politically aligned with the PSUV. Pro-government sources have claimed membership on the order of millions, portraying it as a popular defense architecture. In parallel, colectivos and other armed pro-government groups provide street-level coercion and intelligence in neighborhoods—useful for intimidation, rapid mobilization, and disrupting protests.

These layers matter because they:

• increase the number of armed actors a plotter must neutralize or co-opt,
• create cross-cutting loyalties (party, local patronage, security services), and
• raise the risk that a coup triggers fragmentation and militia conflict rather than a decisive transfer of power.

Defections existed—but mostly where they don’t decide outcomes

There were real waves of desertion and defection, especially 2018–2019, but they skewed heavily toward lower ranks and isolated mid-level actors. Those defections mattered for symbolism and diaspora politics, yet they did not flip the decisive nodes: air defense, the presidential guard, and the intelligence services.

That asymmetry is central for forecasting. In many authoritarian systems, the “coup threshold” is not general dissatisfaction inside the ranks; it is whether a small set of strategic commands believe they can win quickly and then obtain guarantees. In Venezuela, those commands have been structurally tied to regime survival—and heavily monitored.

Post-2026 reality: decapitation didn’t dissolve the security coalition

The January 2026 capture proved the market’s key lesson: removing Maduro is not the same as removing chavismo’s coercive core. Even after Maduro’s physical removal, the regime’s high-value security figures and institutional machinery remained the only actors capable of immediate nationwide control.

As CFR summarized the early post-capture situation: “Maduro is gone but hardline repressive elements of the regime are still there and, at least for the moment, in control.” That is the “regime, not the man” thesis in one sentence—and it is exactly why most think-tank baselines treated an internal coup through 2026 as a low-probability path.

What this means for odds: where markets were wrong (and where they weren’t)

Prediction markets that were explicitly keyed to “Maduro out” were structurally vulnerable to a low-frequency, high-impact external event: U.S. military action. That tail risk was underpriced.

But on the internal mechanics—whether the Venezuelan system would crack from within via a conventional coup—both expert priors and (most of the time) market pricing were directionally consistent: the security apparatus was engineered to resist exactly that failure mode. The state’s coercive ecosystem was not built to guarantee prosperity or legitimacy; it was built to make elite coordination against the regime expensive, penetrable, and likely to fail.

For writers and analysts tracking 2026, the practical takeaway is to treat “Maduro out” contracts as a poor proxy for regime collapse. The better question is whether the security coalition fractures—or whether it reconstitutes leadership while keeping control of the coercive and rent-distribution nodes that actually determine who governs Caracas.

5. Opposition in 2025–26: strong mandate, weak leverage

If prediction markets learned anything from the 2024–25 cycle, it’s that electoral majorities and international recognition can coexist with near‑zero control over the coercive state. Venezuela’s opposition entered 2026 with arguably its clearest democratic mandate since 2015—yet remained structurally unable to compel a transfer of power without cracks inside the ruling coalition.

María Corina Machado (MCM): the charismatic pole of “rupture”

By 2025, María Corina Machado had become the opposition’s organizing center of gravity. Her importance is not just personal popularity; it’s that she consolidated an otherwise splintered ecosystem into a single, emotionally legible storyline: the country already voted for change; the regime is the obstacle; anything short of a full transition is a trap.

Three events made her the central pole:

• The 2023 primary landslide. Machado’s overwhelming win in the opposition primary functioned as a coordination device across parties and civil society: it didn’t unify the opposition institutionally, but it clarified who the public considered the principal challenger.
• Administrative disqualification and the “substitute candidate” pivot. The regime’s use of the Comptroller and courts to bar Machado from running turned her candidacy into a symbol of how the state vetoes electoral competition. When she backed Edmundo González as the opposition’s substitute standard‑bearer, she effectively separated two roles: González as ballot vehicle, Machado as movement leader.
• The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel elevated Machado’s international stature at the exact moment the regime was trying to portray the opposition as exhausted, divided, or foreign‑directed. It strengthened her role as the opposition’s “voice abroad,” even as repression constrained her room to operate at home.

Machado’s political line also hardened the opposition’s internal bargaining space. She is consistently identified with a refusal of cosmetic power‑sharing—deals that preserve the security elite’s impunity and the PSUV’s control of the courts, the electoral authority, and the revenue channels. That stance increases credibility with anti‑Chavista voters, but it also narrows the set of “pacts” that could realistically split regime elites who fear retribution.

Edmundo González: ballot legitimacy, limited operational power

González’s role is best understood as legitimacy without apparatus.

He became the opposition’s 2024 presidential candidate by necessity, but then—according to opposition parallel tallies and widespread international belief—became the actual winner. The opposition presented precinct‑level evidence and claimed González won by a large margin (often described as around two‑thirds of the vote). Multiple foreign leaders later referred to him as the legitimate president‑elect or “president,” a rare level of recognition for an opposition figure in an active authoritarian lock‑in.

Yet González’s formal position inside Venezuela’s state structure was effectively nil. The regime retained the CNE, the courts, the security services, and the public administration—so recognition and vote evidence did not translate into control over ministries, budgets, or command chains. In regime‑stability terms, González strengthened the opposition’s moral and legal claim to govern, but did not change the coercive balance.

The parties: a fragmented machine under “judicialization”

Under the surface of Machado/González unity, the traditional party system remained degraded:

• Primero Justicia (PJ), Acción Democrática (AD), Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT), and Voluntad Popular (VP) continue to matter as brands and local networks.
• But years of judicial interventions—party “takeovers,” court‑recognized parallel leaderships, and selective legalization—have hollowed out their ability to act as coherent national machines.
• Internal splits (strategy, leadership, exile vs. inside) made it difficult to sustain a single command structure for mobilization or negotiation.

The net effect is an opposition that can coordinate around a charismatic pole (Machado), field a unity candidate (González), and run impressive one‑off operations (primaries, parallel tallies)—yet lacks the durable, protected organizational infrastructure that helps movements survive long repression cycles.

Repression, exile, and legal bans: the paradox of sympathy vs. capacity

The regime’s repression strategy in 2025–26 continued to be pre‑emptive and administrative, not just episodic street violence:

• Criminal cases and investigations that keep organizers in legal jeopardy.
• Travel bans, detention threats, and harassment against activists and local brokers.
• Party judicialization that transfers logos, headquarters, and ballot access to compliant factions.

This creates a paradox that analysts often miss: repression can increase international sympathy—and even consolidate a movement’s narrative—while simultaneously reducing in‑country operational capacity. In Venezuela’s case, exile and clandestinity keep top leaders safe and visible abroad, but weaken their ability to coordinate logistics, protect volunteers, and maintain long‑horizon street pressure at home.

Protest and organizing capacity: high peaks, hard to sustain

The opposition demonstrated real capabilities that matter for forecasting:

• High‑integrity civic mobilization: executing a national primary and building election‑day monitoring/parallel counting networks.
• Rally capacity: significant demonstrations after the 2024 election dispute and renewed mobilizations into early 2025.

But sustaining pressure remains difficult for four compounding reasons:

1. Fear and targeted repression: high personal risk for identifiable organizers.
2. Fatigue after repeated “near‑transition” cycles since 2014–2019.
3. Poverty and daily survival constraints, which lower the time and resources households can allocate to prolonged protest.
4. Effective policing and intelligence penetration, which raises the cost of escalating beyond symbolic marches.

That’s why “streets alone” did not become a reliable regime‑change mechanism in 2024–26. Venezuela can produce huge crowds; it struggles to produce sustained, escalating disruption that forces elite defections.

Moral legitimacy vs. coercive leverage: the core wedge markets priced

By late 2025, the opposition’s legitimacy metrics were unusually strong:

• a unified candidate widely believed to have won,
• robust documentary evidence via parallel tallies,
• and expanded international recognition.

What it lacked was the decisive ingredient for near‑term transition odds: coercive leverage. The opposition controlled essentially none of the pillars that determine who actually governs day‑to‑day—military commands, intelligence services, courts, the electoral authority, or core economic rents.

That gap helps explain why prediction markets—while often wrong on timing and catalysts—kept low odds on a purely electoral transition in 2024–26 absent parallel elite splits. In Venezuela’s current structure, votes are necessary for democratic legitimacy, but insufficient for control transfer unless parts of the security‑economic coalition conclude they can survive (or profit from) switching sides.

6. International scaffolding: sanctions, recognition, and external patrons

By late 2025, Venezuela’s internal balance of power was already “closed”: the opposition had legitimacy but not coercive leverage, while the PSUV–security coalition had control but thin popular consent. What kept that arrangement from snapping wasn’t just repression—it was an international scaffolding that simultaneously (a) constrained the regime through sanctions and non‑recognition and (b) gave it enough external oxygen to adapt.

For prediction markets, this is the hard part: foreign policy creates fat‑tailed outcomes. Most of the time, external pressure produces incremental regime engineering (new intermediaries, new trade routes, new elites). But occasionally it produces discontinuities—exactly what happened in January 2026.

The recognition divide: “illegitimate” abroad, but still the UN seat at home

After the contested 2018 election and the 2019 dual‑power moment, the U.S., most EU states, many OAS members, and multiple Latin American democracies stopped treating Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president and shifted symbolic recognition toward the opposition (first the National Assembly/interim presidency logic, later the Machado/González axis after 2024).

Two details matter for regime‑stability writing:

1. Non‑recognition is not the same as de‑facto displacement. Western capitals could refuse to recognize Maduro while still dealing with his bureaucracy on migration returns, sanctions licensing, hostage diplomacy, and energy.

2. The UN “seat test” stayed with Caracas. Regardless of who foreign ministries called “legitimate,” Venezuela’s UN representation remained with Maduro’s appointed diplomats into the 2026 crisis. That gap—between political recognition and multilateral/legal status—became central after the U.S. capture, because it shaped arguments about sovereignty, jurisdiction, and immunity.

Sanctions architecture: pressure with escape hatches

Markets often treat “sanctions” as a binary. Venezuela shows they’re better modeled as an architecture with tunable components.

United States (maximum leverage, maximum variability). U.S. measures combined:

• Individual sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans) on senior officials and business figures.
• Financial restrictions limiting access to U.S. capital markets and dollar channels.
• Sweeping oil/sectoral sanctions targeting PDVSA and core export revenue.

The key market implication is not that sanctions always “work,” but that they change the regime’s financing mix—pushing it toward opaque sales, discounts, intermediaries, and illicit rents.

Just as important, U.S. policy repeatedly demonstrated episodic relief tied to negotiations and election benchmarks—most visibly through licenses allowing limited operations (e.g., Chevron-linked activity), followed by later revocations when talks stalled or electoral conditions deteriorated. That “accordion” pattern makes external policy a tradable catalyst: market prices should be more sensitive to license risk than to generic sanctions headlines.

European Union (lower variance, targeted). EU measures have generally been narrower: targeted asset freezes and travel bans, plus an arms embargo and restrictions on surveillance equipment that could be used for internal repression. The EU’s posture matters less for immediate cash flow than for legitimacy and elite mobility (banking, travel, family assets).

External backers: how the regime endures economic pressure

Sanctions don’t operate in a vacuum. Caracas endured because it built a patchwork of external patrons and sanctions‑busting channels:

• Russia: diplomatic cover (including UN rhetoric and Security Council shielding), political support, and longstanding security/arms ties. Russia’s payoff is geopolitical: a partner that signals U.S. constraints in the hemisphere.

• China: the more cautious but financially consequential patron—oil‑linked lending legacies, continued crude purchases (often through opaque routes), and selective commercial engagement. Beijing has tended to avoid maximal confrontation, but its demand and financing options helped keep Venezuela from total isolation.

• Cuba: the most operationally important security partner. Cuban intelligence and advisory support has long been described as a force multiplier for regime counterintelligence and internal control—precisely the capabilities that determine whether decapitation becomes collapse.

• Iran and other enablers: fuel/refinery assistance and sanctions‑busting trade networks that keep minimal energy functionality and logistics alive when formal channels tighten.

A useful forecasting heuristic: sanctions are a stress test; patrons are a shock absorber. Patrons don’t make the regime prosperous—they help it stay coherent.

The regional split: “sovereignty-first” vs “pressure-first” Latin America

The hemisphere’s political divide rarely maps cleanly onto “pro-” or “anti-” Maduro. Instead, it maps onto views about U.S. coercion.

In the wake of the January 2026 operation, some governments (Argentina, Paraguay and others at various times) praised strong action and framed Maduro’s removal as positive for democracy and anti‑narcotics goals. Others—Brazil under Lula, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Spain, and several Caribbean states—condemned unilateral U.S. military action and emphasized sovereignty and dialogue even while criticizing Venezuela’s democratic collapse.

For markets, this matters because regional legitimacy is a gating factor for:

• multilateral enforcement and cooperation,
• recognition of any transitional authority,
• and whether neighboring states treat border security and migration as a collective or bilateral issue.

January 2026: capture shock, sovereignty debates, and the “no endgame” warning

The U.S. capture of Maduro forced three debates that prediction markets had not priced well:

1) Sovereignty and head‑of‑state immunity. Legal analysts immediately argued over whether non‑recognition weakens immunity claims—and whether a de‑facto UN-recognized representative still triggers head‑of‑state protections. This wasn’t academic: it shaped how third countries responded (cooperate, condemn, or sit on the fence) and how quickly financial and diplomatic systems would treat the post‑capture Venezuelan authority as “real.”

2) Recognition without a transition plan. Think‑tanks converged on a similar worry: removing Maduro is one thing; governing Venezuela the next day is another. Without a viable transition framework, decapitation can produce fragmentation (competing security nodes, predatory illicit actors, localized violence) rather than a clean handover.

3) Regime adaptation as the default response. The immediate post‑capture pattern described by analysts was continuity of hard power: key Chavista officials and security leaders remained positioned to run the state machinery even with Maduro in custody.

What this means for 2026 odds: external shocks are tail risks—but “clean collapse” is still hard

For trading and writing, the practical takeaways are:

• External actors can generate low‑probability, high‑impact discontinuities (the January 2026 lesson). Any model that assigns ~0% to unilateral action is structurally fragile.

• But absent coordinated transition architecture, shocks more often create new equilibria than clean collapses. Sanctions tighten → the regime reroutes. Recognition shifts → the regime governs through coercion and bureaucracy. Decapitation occurs → the system searches for a successor center of gravity.

• The most tradable variable isn’t “U.S. pressure” in general; it’s whether foreign actors can align on a credible sequencing plan (security guarantees, electoral timeline, control of oil revenue, and recognition mechanics). Without that, foreign action tends to increase volatility while leaving the coercive core intact—meaning markets should price regime adaptation higher than instant transition, even after dramatic headlines.

7. Experts vs. markets: who was right about Maduro and regime resilience?

The cleanest way to read the January 2026 capture is as a stress test of two different forecasting styles.

• Think‑tank and academic analysis largely started from structure: how coercion, patronage, and international “shock absorbers” make certain regimes durable even when they are unpopular and economically mismanaged.
• Prediction markets largely started from a resolution event: whether one man would be “out” by a certain date.

Both approaches were directionally useful—until an exogenous shock made the question itself ambiguous. The capture turned “Maduro out” from a proxy for regime change into a narrow settlement criterion. And it exposed how easy it is to mistake leader risk (decapitation) for regime risk (coalition collapse).

What experts were saying pre‑capture: resilient autocracy, low odds of spontaneous collapse

Across the mainstream policy and academic literature pre‑2026, Venezuela was increasingly characterized as a resilient authoritarian system rather than a regime on the brink.

The recurring consensus elements (even among analysts sharply critical of Maduro) were:

1. Coercive capacity was intact. The key security institutions—FANB high command, intelligence services, and armed auxiliaries—had been built and staffed to resist precisely the kinds of internal ruptures that “street pressure” narratives assume.

2. Patronage and rents still bound elites. Even as the formal economy collapsed, remaining oil cash flow and illicit rents (gold, smuggling, sanctions evasion) continued to function as glue for the ruling coalition.

3. Opposition strength didn’t equal leverage. Electoral majorities and international recognition were seen as insufficient without a corresponding shift in coercive alignment.

4. The principal endogenous danger channel was an elite split. The most credible path to a real transition was typically framed as: high‑level defection (military/PSUV) + international pressure/guarantees + a negotiated sequencing mechanism.

Put bluntly: pre‑capture expert priors tended to treat “Maduro falls next month” as unlikely not because the country was stable in a normal sense, but because the regime’s survival architecture was designed to make abrupt, internal collapse rare. That baseline view is also why most serious analysts expected authoritarian continuity through at least the mid‑2020s absent a major shock.

What experts said after the capture: removing Maduro didn’t remove the regime

Post‑capture analysis converged quickly on an uncomfortable conclusion: the operation removed a head of state, but it did not automatically produce a transition government with domestic control.

• CFR summarized the core continuity claim: “Maduro is gone but hardline repressive elements of the regime are still there and, at least for the moment, in control.” That is the “regime vs. leader” distinction in one sentence.

• CSIS framed the operation as a tactical success without a governing plan—its headline diagnosis was effectively “victory, no endgame,” noting that Maduro’s officials remained in charge and warning that working through regime loyalists rather than a credible transition architecture would likely fail.

• Janus Henderson (in an investment‑oriented read) also emphasized continuity: Chavismo retained strong control; figures like Delcy Rodríguez were described as capable of holding short‑term stability; and rapid democratization/regime change was treated as unlikely in the near term.

• Atlantic Council and New Lines Institute widened the risk frame: the most immediate danger wasn’t “instant democracy,” but fragmented authority and criminal competition—a state that still exists on paper, but where the post‑Maduro command environment becomes contested, especially around illicit revenue nodes and border regions.

In other words, expert commentary quickly pivoted from “is Maduro personally safe?” to “what does governance look like when the regime has to re‑coordinate without him—and when there is no agreed transition blueprint?”

Overlaying the market: accurate on baseline…until tail risk arrived

Before January 2026, the flagship markets effectively reflected the same structural baseline as experts: the regime had survived repeated crises, so near‑term exit contracts tended to be priced as low‑probability.

But the capture revealed two market vulnerabilities:

1. Event‑driven discontinuity risk was underpriced. A unilateral U.S. military decapitation was a fat‑tail outcome—rare, but decisive. Markets treated it as too close to zero.

2. The contracts centered the individual leader, not the coalition. Once the event happened, “Maduro out” snapped to “Yes,” while the more relevant question—does Chavismo retain governing control?—remained open and contested.

The scale of attention (and the whiplash) is visible in the liquidity that piled into the “Maduro out by…?” series.

Two details matter for analysts writing about “markets vs. experts.”

First, the repricing was late and violent. The market spent years leaning toward “continuity,” then had to compress a huge information update into days. That is exactly what prediction markets do poorly when the catalyst is a low‑frequency geopolitical intervention rather than an observable domestic trend.

Second, the capture spawned a credibility problem: information asymmetry. Reporting after the event highlighted anomalous, well‑timed bets that profited from the spike—raising uncomfortable questions about whether some participants had superior information (or worse, non‑public operational awareness) ahead of the raid.

The press put numbers on this dynamic.

Whether or not any specific account acted on inside information, the broader methodological point stands: markets can aggregate dispersed beliefs, but they can also concentrate advantages when a small set of actors has better access to state or security information. In authoritarian and national‑security contexts, that asymmetry risk is not incidental—it’s structural.

Where experts and markets converged

Despite the headline shock, experts and markets actually shared a key “right answer” for much of the pre‑2026 period:

• Absent a major shock, authoritarian continuity was the modal outcome. Experts grounded that view in coercive and patronage structures; markets expressed it through persistently low pricing of near‑term exit dates.

And after the capture, many analysts and traders converged again on the next‑order insight:

• Maduro’s removal was not equivalent to a regime transition. Post‑capture commentary from CFR/CSIS/Janus Henderson—and the emergence of successor/continuity framing in markets—pointed in the same direction: the coercive‑administrative machine can reconstitute leadership.

Where they diverged (and why it matters)

The divergence is less about “who predicted January 2026” and more about what each method implicitly modeled.

1. Markets underweighted exogenous intervention. Think‑tanks often list “external shock” as a possibility, but markets—especially retail‑heavy ones—tend to treat it as effectively untradeable until it is imminent. Venezuela demonstrated that geopolitical intervention is not noise; it is a parameter.

2. Both communities over‑indexed on a single person. Analysts write about Maduro because he is the face of the system; markets wrote contracts around him because he was easily definable. But in Venezuela, the question that determines stability is not “Is Maduro president?” It is “Does the PSUV–security coalition control the state and revenue nodes?”

3. Leader exit can increase short‑run instability without producing transition. Post‑capture warnings—especially New Lines’ emphasis on criminal‑ecosystem disruption and Atlantic Council’s concern about fragmented authority—highlight a common failure mode: a decapitated regime can become more violent and more predatory while still surviving as a governing coalition.

Methodological lessons for analysts (and for market design)

Three practical lessons are worth making explicit in any 2026‑horizon write‑up:

• Model ‘leader risk’ separately from ‘regime risk’. A contract about Maduro’s status is a poor proxy for whether coercive institutions, courts, revenue channels, and territorial control change hands.

• Treat exogenous intervention as a fat‑tail variable, not a rounding error. If your base case is “continuity,” you still need a non‑zero parameter for the kind of external discontinuity that can instantly dominate outcomes.

• Read specialized political analysis alongside price signals. Markets can be excellent at compressing known information into odds, but they are weak at “inventing” institutional detail. In Venezuela, the detail that mattered was already in the expert literature: coercive cohesion, patronage networks, and the absence of a transition architecture.

Those three lessons are the bridge between sections 6 and 8 of this article: international scaffolding creates tail risk, but regime continuity is still the default unless the coercive coalition fractures or a credible, enforceable transition sequence emerges.

8. Scenario framework: three paths for Venezuela’s regime stability through end‑2026

Sections 3–7 leave us with a practical forecasting problem: once you stop treating “Maduro out” as equivalent to “regime change,” you need a small number of state‑control scenarios you can map to prices, headlines, and observable indicators.

The goal here is not to publish a single deterministic “call.” It’s to give analysts and traders a decision tree that stays usable when the news cycle turns chaotic—exactly the environment where Venezuela markets have repeatedly mispriced tail risk.

Below are three scenarios that cover most of the probability mass through end‑2026. They are written in regime mechanics terms (control of the state, coercion, and rents), not in electoral or legal‑recognition terms.

Important: the probability ranges are illustrative. Treat them as a way to organize thinking and to sanity‑check market prices—not as a house forecast. In practice, you’d anchor to the market-implied distribution and then justify a deviation using the leading indicators listed later in this section.

---

Scenario 1 — Resilient Chavismo (minus Maduro): authoritarian continuity under successor leadership

Core claim: Chavista elites re‑coordinate after Maduro’s removal, preserve cohesion in the armed forces and intelligence services, and maintain control over core economic assets (PDVSA-linked cashflows, customs/border rents, mining and sanctions‑evasion networks). They may make limited economic or political concessions, but no meaningful transfer of executive authority to the opposition occurs by end‑2026.

How it can look in practice (2026 version):

• A caretaker or successor leadership (often modeled by analysts as a Delcy Rodríguez / Diosdado Cabello / Padrino López power balance) governs via existing institutions.
• Tactical negotiations continue (hostage/prisoner swaps, limited humanitarian channels, narrow sanctions licenses), but talks are structured to reduce pressure, not share power.
• The regime prioritizes containment: keep protests episodic, keep military pay/rents flowing, and keep oil exports stable enough to fund the machine.

Why this scenario deserves base‑case weight: it is the “default” equilibrium implied by the survival architecture discussed earlier—coercive cohesion + rent distribution + opposition legitimacy without enforcement power.

Signature indicators (what to watch):

1. Unified high command: no public split messaging from strategic commands; promotions/rotations reinforce loyalty rather than reveal factional competition.
2. Steady oil exports: output and exports remain roughly stable (even if discounted), suggesting continued access to operational capacity and sanctions‑evasion plumbing.
3. Managed, contained protest cycle: periodic demonstrations occur, but repression remains selective and effective—large enough to deter escalation, not so indiscriminate that it triggers elite panic.

Illustrative probability range through end‑2026: ~50–70%.

---

Scenario 2 — Negotiated transition: elite defections + mediated framework produces real power transfer

Core claim: A meaningful subset of regime elites—especially within the security apparatus and economic gatekeepers—concludes that the current path is unsustainable and seeks an off‑ramp. International mediation plus credible security guarantees produce a power‑sharing or handover framework in which the opposition gains actual executive authority (not just symbolic recognition), and a re‑democratization sequence begins.

This is not “street pressure wins.” It’s bargaining wins—because enough insiders decide they can survive (or even profit) under a transition architecture.

What distinguishes real transition from “dialogue theater”:

• The opposition (Machado/González axis and coalition partners) obtains control over at least one of the decisive levers: interior/public security, finance/oil revenue administration, electoral authority reform, or an internationally monitored interim executive.
• Credible guarantees are visible: structured amnesty/exit options for specific actors, safe‑conduct commitments, and third‑party monitoring with enforcement hooks (sanctions snap‑back / asset unfreezing sequencing).

Signature indicators (what to watch):

1. Credible talks with security guarantees: not just meetings, but written sequencing: who controls what ministry when, what happens to commanders, what happens to sanctions.
2. Elite defections that matter: public positioning by senior military figures or intelligence-linked actors—especially if coordinated and sustained.
3. Inclusive interim institutions: a transition council, interim cabinet, or reconstituted electoral authority with participation that is not regime‑vetoable.
4. Coordinated messaging: opposition leaders and key state/security figures communicate a shared roadmap (a classic tell that bargaining has moved from signaling to execution).

Why it’s plausible (but not the modal case): pacted exits exist in Latin America, and Venezuela’s crisis creates real incentives for elite bargaining—especially if oil cashflows fall, sanctions tighten, or internal factionalism rises. But the barrier remains high: insiders require credible protection against prosecution and loss of rents.

Illustrative probability range through end‑2026: ~15–30%.

---

Scenario 3 — Fragmentation and partial collapse: post‑Maduro power struggle erodes central control

Core claim: Maduro’s removal becomes a coordination shock that the Chavista coalition cannot fully absorb. Instead of a clean transition, Venezuela drifts toward a contested-state equilibrium: PSUV and security factions compete, criminal networks expand, and local armed groups gain autonomy—especially in border and resource regions. Central authority persists on paper, but governance capacity degrades and violence rises.

This is the scenario analysts often describe as “worse than continuity, not (yet) democracy.” It is compatible with a nominal government in Caracas that still claims the presidency, while large parts of the country operate as de facto fiefdoms.

New Lines Institute captured the mechanism succinctly, warning that Maduro’s capture could disrupt a “somewhat stable criminal ecosystem” and trigger “competition among illicit actors,” raising risks of “escalating violence, instability, and displacement.” (New Lines Institute)

Signature indicators (what to watch):

1. Open splits inside PSUV/military: competing spokespeople, contradictory orders, contested appointments, or visible armed stand‑offs between units.
2. Surge in localized armed clashes: especially around borders, mining zones, smuggling routes, and major infrastructure.
3. Declining fiscal/administrative control: wage arrears, inability to import essentials, tax/customs leakage, and hollowing of basic state functions beyond the already‑low baseline.
4. Service breakdown beyond current levels: sharper electricity/fuel distribution failures, hospital supply collapse, or food availability shocks that are not quickly patched.

Why it can be underpriced: markets often anchor on binary outcomes (regime vs. transition) and miss the middle: a state that “survives” but loses territorial and administrative coherence.

Illustrative probability range through end‑2026: ~10–25%.

---

Turning scenarios into tradable hypotheses: what should move odds?

A useful discipline is to connect each scenario to a small set of leading indicators that are (a) observable, (b) hard to fake for long, and (c) directly linked to the coercion‑and‑rents mechanism.

1) Protest size + repression intensity (political temperature)

• What to track: crowd estimates, geographic spread, duration; arrests/detentions; lethal incidents; internet blackouts.
• Data sources: ACLED-style event data, NGO detention trackers, open‑source video geolocation, telecom outage reporting.
• Scenario signals:
  • Scenario 1: protests recur but stay containable; repression is targeted.
  • Scenario 2: protests coincide with elite bargaining and reduced repression (or negotiated policing).
  • Scenario 3: protests become localized flashpoints with armed actors, not just police.

2) Oil output/export stability + sanctions/licensing changes (cashflow oxygen)

• What to track: output estimates (OPEC secondary sources), tanker tracking, export discounts, OFAC licensing headlines.
• Scenario signals:
  • Scenario 1: stable exports (even discounted) = continued rent distribution.
  • Scenario 2: sanctions relief becomes sequenced to governance concessions.
  • Scenario 3: disruptions, theft, or regional predation reduce exports and cash predictability.

3) Elite defections + negotiation milestones (coalition cohesion)

• What to track: resignations, asylum requests, public statements by senior commanders, credible leaks of bargaining terms; third‑party mediation announcements.
• Scenario signals:
  • Scenario 1: defections are isolated and punished.
  • Scenario 2: defections are clustered, senior, and paired with guarantee language.
  • Scenario 3: defections are factional and violent, not institutional.

4) International recognition shifts (external legitimacy and enforcement)

• What to track: OAS/EU/major Latin American statements on who they treat as executive authority; UN procedural shifts; asset control rulings.
• Scenario signals:
  • Scenario 1: continued rhetorical non‑recognition but pragmatic dealings with de facto rulers.
  • Scenario 2: coordinated recognition of an interim authority paired with enforcement tools.
  • Scenario 3: fragmented recognition as states pick local partners for security/migration management.

5) Humanitarian indicators (pressure and exit valve)

• What to track: migration flows (UNHCR/R4V), U.S. border encounters, food insecurity surveys, medicine shortages.
• Scenario signals:
  • Scenario 1: chronic hardship persists, but without sudden nationwide collapse.
  • Scenario 2: modest improvement expectations appear with aid inflows and institutional opening.
  • Scenario 3: renewed displacement surge and sharper service failure.

---

How to use this framework with prediction markets

• If markets price “Chavista control through 2026” extremely high, the question is not “do you disagree,” but which indicator would have to break (oil cashflow, high-command unity, or credible guarantees) for the price to be wrong.
• If markets start pricing “transition” higher, verify whether you’re seeing real guarantees + real defections, not just talks.
• If markets ignore fragmentation risk, look for security splits + territorial violence—the signature combination that turns “continuity” into “partial collapse.”

CSIS’s post‑capture framing—“a military victory with no viable endgame”—is a reminder that discontinuities can happen without producing a governed transition. That gap is exactly where Scenario 3 lives, and where mispricing often concentrates.

9. Trading Venezuela regime risk: how to use prediction markets intelligently

Section 8 gave you a scenario tree. This section turns it into trade construction.

Step 1 — Trade the right object: regime control, not the leader headline

The January 2026 shock exposed a common structural error: markets (and many traders) used “Maduro out” as a proxy for “regime change.” That proxy breaks exactly when you most want protection—during externally imposed discontinuities, succession improvisations, and “decapitation without transition” outcomes.

The baseline lesson is the CFR framing you should keep taped to your monitor: “Maduro is gone but hardline repressive elements of the regime are still there and, at least for the moment, in control.” (Council on Foreign Relations)

So, re-center your watchlist around contracts that resolve on state control checkpoints, not one person’s status.

Step 2 — Build a regime-risk market stack (active markets or the structures you should demand)

In practice, a usable Venezuela “regime stack” has five layers. If your venue only lists leader-exit, you can still approximate the stack by combining adjacent markets (sanctions, oil, recognition) and explicitly mapping them to your scenarios.

A. Leader exit by date (event risk / headlines):

• Useful for timing and volatility, but a poor instrument for “who rules Venezuela.”

B. Control of the presidency at checkpoints (regime continuity core):

• “PSUV/Chavista coalition controls presidency on Dec 31, 2026.”
• “Opposition recognized interim authority controls ministries by Sep 2026.”

C. Recognition by key states / organizations (external enforcement):

• “EU recognizes González as de facto executive by Q2 2026.”
• “OAS seats an opposition delegate by end-2026.”

D. Sanctions-relief milestones (cashflow oxygen):

• “OFAC re-issues broad oil licenses by June 2026.”
• “Sanctions snap-back triggered by failed negotiations in 2026.”

E. Macro/political-economic proxies tied to political change:

• Oil production targets (e.g., >1.3 mb/d by Dec 2026).
• Sovereign debt outcomes (restructuring/settlement contingent on a recognized transition).

Why this matters: the economic backdrop can keep an authoritarian successor coalition viable. Venezuela ended 2025 around 1.142 mb/d crude production (Trading Economics), far above the 2020 trough; that is the kind of “minimal oxygen” that stabilizes the security–patronage machine.

Step 3 — Contract design: what “Maduro out” missed (and what better contracts capture)

A single-person contract under-captures regime continuity for three reasons:

1. Idiosyncratic leader events dominate payoff. Capture, exile, resignation, medical incapacity, or a legal technicality can resolve “out” while leaving coercive control untouched.

2. Succession ambiguity becomes free optionality for the regime. Autocracies often re-label roles and re-route authority (caretaker presidents, councils, “temporary” delegations). “Out” can resolve while the same coalition governs.

3. It encourages traders to confuse decapitation with transition. CSIS warned the operation resembled a “military victory with no viable endgame”—exactly the state where leader contracts pay, while regime-change exposure is still wrong-way. (CSIS)

Better contract primitives (for market designers and traders lobbying for listings):

• “Chavista control” contracts (control of presidency / armed forces / interior ministry at set dates).
• “Democratic transition benchmarks” contracts (internationally observed election held; political prisoners released; CNE reform; opposition takes finance/interior; amnesty/guarantee package signed).
• Two-stage contracts that explicitly separate removal from replacement (e.g., “Leader removed by X” AND “Opposition assumes executive authority by Y”).

Step 4 — A pre-trade checklist that forces scenario-to-payoff discipline

Before entering, write your scenario thesis in one sentence and then score it against four pillars. If you can’t tie a pillar to a specific observable indicator, you’re trading vibes.

1) Military/security cohesion

• Promotions/rotations: do they signal unity or factional fear?
• Any senior defections or only lower-rank noise?
• Does the coercive ecosystem remain funded (pay, perks, border rents)?

2) Opposition leverage (not legitimacy)

• Can the opposition enforce outcomes inside Venezuela, or only abroad?
• Do negotiations include credible security guarantees (the only thing that reliably moves insiders)?

3) International posture

• Is recognition coordinated and enforceable (assets, banking channels, UN/OAS procedures), or symbolic?
• Are sanctions decisions sequenced to governance benchmarks, or used as headline punishment/reward?

4) Economic stress (acute vs. chronic)

• Oil export continuity vs disruptions.
• Inflation and household stress: Venezuela still posted extreme inflation readings (e.g., ~172% y/y in Apr 2025, Trading Economics) alongside partial stabilization—meaning “misery” doesn’t automatically equal “collapse.”

Then map the thesis to contracts:

• Scenario 1 (resilient Chavismo) → long “Chavista controls presidency by Dec 2026,” short “transition benchmark by 2026,” cautious on pure leader-exit.
• Scenario 2 (negotiated transition) → long “sanctions relief tied to benchmarks,” long “recognition shift,” long “election/monitoring milestone.”
• Scenario 3 (fragmentation) → avoid binaries; prefer markets that pay on instability proxies (migration surges, oil disruptions) if available.

Step 5 — Time-horizon discipline: don’t mix 3–6 month catalysts with 1–2 year structure

Most traders lose money in regime markets by holding the wrong instrument through the wrong regime phase.

Use this separation:

Step 6 — Information asymmetry and tail-risk sizing (what the capture trade should change)

The Maduro capture episode wasn’t only about mispricing; it also highlighted information asymmetry. Post-event reporting flagged unusually well-timed bets in the leader-exit markets (BBC; The Atlantic), reminding traders that in national-security-adjacent contracts:

• a small number of participants may have better access to operational or diplomatic signals, and
• your “edge” can be illusory if you’re last to the real information.

Practical sizing rules for fat tails:

• Treat any Venezuela position as geopolitical tail exposure and size it like one (many pros cap single-event EM political risk at low single-digit % of risk budget).
• Prefer spreads/baskets over single binaries: e.g., pair “Chavista control by Dec 2026” with “sanctions relief by mid-2026” to separate “control” from “cashflow.”
• Demand convexity when you’re trading discontinuities: small premium for large payoff, not large capital for small edge.

Step 7 — Related market clusters (how to cross-check your thesis)

Venezuela regime outcomes co-move with other prices—even if your prediction venue doesn’t list them. Use these as sanity checks and, where possible, as hedges.

Oil complex:

• Heavy-crude differentials and refinery margins often react more than headline Brent/WTI.
• Watch Venezuelan supply assumptions via tanker tracking and the discount structure.

Sovereign risk:

• Venezuela sovereign bonds (where traded) and any proxy CDS quotes respond to perceived settlement probability.
• Tie your debt thesis to political milestones: restructurings are hard without a recognized counterparty and sanctions clarity.

Migration / border policy:

• Venezuela displacement is already massive—about 8 million since 2015 (Gallup). Spikes in outflows are often a real-time indicator of Scenario 3 risk (fragmentation) even when Caracas politics looks “stable.”

Regional stability co-movers:

• Colombia border security, Guyana–Venezuela tensions, and U.S.–LatAm diplomatic splits can all shift the tail distribution.

A simple, high-signal workflow (what “intelligent use” looks like)

1. Start with one scenario sentence.
2. Pick two contracts: one that pays on control (regime), one that pays on cashflow/recognition (external constraint).
3. Write the three observable indicators that would falsify you.
4. Pre-commit to a time horizon and a stop/trim rule.
5. Monitor cross-markets (oil, debt, migration) to detect whether you’re trading narrative rather than structure.

That is how you avoid repeating the pre-2026 mistake: confusing a clean settlement condition with the messy question of who can actually run Venezuela day to day.

10. Methods, data, and limits: how we built this 2026 stability view

This article is a framework-first read of Venezuela’s 2026 regime stability: we start from what prediction markets actually resolve on, then layer in macro constraints, coercive-coalition dynamics, and external policy tail risks. The goal is reproducibility—so you can swap in your own priors, datasets, or market venues.

A. Quantitative inputs (what we measured)

We used a small set of high-signal, regularly updated indicators to anchor the “capacity to govern” question.

• GDP and GDP per capita: IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) series (October 2025 vintage), used as the baseline for cross-country comparable GDP levels and per-capita context.
• Inflation and oil output: Trading Economics for a harmonized, frequently updated dashboard; cross-checked (where possible) against Banco Central de Venezuela (BCV) releases and secondary compilations. We explicitly treat inflation estimates as range-like during and after hyperinflation, because basket definitions and publication gaps create discontinuities.
• Poverty / living conditions: ENCOVI (household survey) for poverty and welfare snapshots; Gallup for internationally comparable “everyday life” stress indicators (e.g., affordability of food, income strain).
• Migration / displacement: UN agencies’ tracking (notably the R4V platform led by UNHCR/IOM) for official displacement totals; Gallup for complementary population-scale estimates and sentiment-based measures.

B. Qualitative and analytical inputs (how we interpreted mechanisms)

Because internal regime dynamics aren’t directly observable, we triangulated from institutions that specialize in political-economy and coercive politics:

• Crisis Group–style conflict and negotiation analysis (stakeholder incentives, bargaining failure modes).
• WOLA / Wilson Center–type commentary (sanctions design, human-rights constraints, negotiation sequencing).
• CSIS and similar macro–political briefs (U.S. policy mechanics, transition feasibility).
• Atlantic Council / CFR scenario pieces (post-capture governance pathways and regional spillovers).
• Academic work on competitive authoritarianism and regime durability (the “coalition + coercion + rents” survival model; useful for separating leader exit from regime replacement).

We then mapped these mechanisms into the three-scenario tree in Section 8, and tied each branch to observable indicators (oil cashflow continuity, elite splits, protest/repression intensity, sanctions/recognition sequencing).

C. Limits and uncertainty (what can break this framework)

1. Economic data quality is uneven. Hyperinflation years and post-hyperinflation “stabilization” produce measurement artifacts—especially for CPI, real GDP, and exchange-rate pass-through. We avoid false precision by focusing on direction, ranges, and consistency across sources.

2. Regime dynamics are opaque by design. Elite bargains, command-and-control cohesion, and illicit-rent distribution are largely private. Public statements can be strategic deception.

3. January 2026’s U.S. operation remains an evolving fact pattern. Details about objectives, rules of engagement, third-country cooperation, and the post-capture governance plan may change as investigations, leaks, and diplomatic negotiations unfold.

4. Narrative bias is structural. Both government and opposition messaging often contains selective truths. We treat claims as hypotheses until corroborated by multiple independent streams.

5. Prediction markets have microstructure risks. Resolution criteria can be narrower than “who rules,” prices can gap on policy headlines, and information asymmetry can be acute in national-security events.

D. What our probabilities are—and are not

The scenario probability ranges used in this piece are illustrative: they are meant to help readers sanity-check market pricing and organize coverage, not to provide trading advice. In Venezuela, odds can move sharply on two catalysts: U.S. policy shifts (sanctions/licensing/recognition) and credible elite splits inside the security-economic core.

E. Treat this as a living template (how to update through 2026)

A practical update loop:

• Monthly/quarterly: refresh IMF/TE macro anchors; track oil output/export continuity.
• Weekly: log protest waves, detention bursts, and negotiation milestones (who met, what was written, what was enforced).
• Daily: watch market prices for discontinuities; when prices gap, ask which indicator actually changed (coercion, rents, or external enforcement), versus which headline merely re-labeled the same equilibrium.

If your new data changes the answer to any of those three pillars, the scenario weights should change too.