Polymarket should be illegal, and I'll reiterate again my position that we/society should remove from ourselves the ability to make online crimes like this without a 100% chance of trivially...
Polymarket should be illegal, and I'll reiterate again my position that we/society should remove from ourselves the ability to make online crimes like this without a 100% chance of trivially getting caught.
Agreed. As i've said before its been wild watching the world adopt gambling coming from Vegas. We've spent a VERY long time litigating gambling and trying to find a sweet spot between "city of...
Agreed. As i've said before its been wild watching the world adopt gambling coming from Vegas. We've spent a VERY long time litigating gambling and trying to find a sweet spot between "city of vice" and "not being a rundown hell hole".
Regardless of how well we've done that, the things that have been allowed nationally and internationally, like polymarket, are fucking INSANE. Just like watching the entire world learn first principles finance by speedrunning every scam in Crypto, Polymarket, national sports betting, and mobile gaming have all been insane to me as every single one likely would've been out and out illegal from the get go in Vegas (and yes i know several headquarters are here and its a very hot subject).
At the very least it should be regulated (and preferably enforced) like other gambling. They're now skating by on the "predictions aren't bets" defense but it's getting thinner by the day.
At the very least it should be regulated (and preferably enforced) like other gambling. They're now skating by on the "predictions aren't bets" defense but it's getting thinner by the day.
Here's what I'd want- All forms of gambling that are currently legal stay legal To bet you have to register with an authority and get an ID. If American think DMV/ drivers license. All bets are...
Here's what I'd want-
All forms of gambling that are currently legal stay legal
To bet you have to register with an authority and get an ID. If American think DMV/ drivers license.
All bets are capped at $100 / day. Higher earners can petition for more.
All bets must be tracked and associated back to an ID number.
Keep the casual fun and don't lose people's agency but prevent any life altering losses or motivation to corrupt the results.
I understand your point. I don't have strong opinion on this topic, so I'm curious: where do you drive the line? For me sport gambling, lottery, investing, and different types of speculation as...
I understand your point.
I don't have strong opinion on this topic, so I'm curious: where do you drive the line?
For me sport gambling, lottery, investing, and different types of speculation as well as prediction market all have similar root idea and not so different in a sense.
Conflict of interest seems like a reasonable starting point for where it becomes a problem? Lotteries are random, so inherently safe on that front, although they often ban participation from...
Conflict of interest seems like a reasonable starting point for where it becomes a problem?
Lotteries are random, so inherently safe on that front, although they often ban participation from employees anyway to avoid creating any incentives to mess with the RNG. Sports betting already bans players, managers, anyone who’d have the ability to throw the game in exchange for a big payout. Investing bans insider trading, or at least makes a cursory attempt to do so most of the time. Ish.
The big problem with Polymarket as it stands is the incentive to change the outcome if it’s within your power - either by betting on things you already control and changing the actual path of events, or by straight up criminal threats to create a false narrative as in this case.
My first impression was the conflict of interests would eventually become priced in, but on deeper thought I don’t think so. It seems analogous to insider trading in the stock market, and will...
My first impression was the conflict of interests would eventually become priced in, but on deeper thought I don’t think so. It seems analogous to insider trading in the stock market, and will distort markets (or statistical bets) and so is a problem. Hard to control or regulate when it’s difficult to know and it’s so accessible to so many people.
Yeah, I was thinking this one through a bit when a topic about Polymarket came up previously - if there’s a situation with an outcome that’s absolutely set in stone and can’t be changed, insider...
Yeah, I was thinking this one through a bit when a topic about Polymarket came up previously - if there’s a situation with an outcome that’s absolutely set in stone and can’t be changed, insider betting could maybe price itself in and actually add more information to the market (whether it’s fair to allow people to cash in on that is a whole other can of worms, but at least it’s not an actual conflict because the outcome’s predetermined). Problem is that very little in the real world is that definite, and if something is then people probably won’t bother betting on it in the first place!
Accounting for the squishy boundaries of the real world, you’ve got the classic conflict of just betting on something you control and then choosing the outcome so you win, but you’ve also got the meta-conflict of people using Polymarket itself as an information signal for other valuable decisions.
If you’re a company looking to buy out a competitor, and there’s a bet on whether the deal will go through, maybe you put $200m into Polymarket saying it won’t - people see that, the stock price of the competitor drops because everyone assumes the insiders know the deal has fallen through and they’re looking to win an easy bet on it, and you get to buy the competitor at a knock down price. As long as the stock drop saves you more than $200m on the purchase price, it’s worth deliberately losing the Polymarket bet to spread the doubt that makes it happen.
"Insider trading" is an intended part of polymarket. That's drawing in more information to make the price more accurate. Insider trading is not wanted for, say, stock markets, because people in...
"Insider trading" is an intended part of polymarket. That's drawing in more information to make the price more accurate. Insider trading is not wanted for, say, stock markets, because people in the business of owning stock don't want to constantly be worried about whether or not they thing they're owning is about to get wrekt.
But polymarket isn't a stock market, and it doesn't particularly care about insider trading. It would say that, say, someone from the defense market putting in a bet for whether or not Iran is going to get bombed is doing exactly what the site was intended to do - that bet will put upward pressure on the value of bets that Iran will be bombed, and that's information and a closer probability to the real probability.
I think the fear is that the insider trading might get a little too inside and turn into more direct manipulation — for example, someone from the defense market actively promoting or undermining...
I think the fear is that the insider trading might get a little too inside and turn into more direct manipulation — for example, someone from the defense market actively promoting or undermining bombing efforts in Iran to win a bigger payout. Preventing conflicts of interest like these is one reason jurisdictions often make insider trading illegal.
Rather than asking whether "insider trading" is an intended feature, one should ask whether that is a good feature. Leaking classified military intelligence is a crime, and while there can be...
Rather than asking whether "insider trading" is an intended feature, one should ask whether that is a good feature. Leaking classified military intelligence is a crime, and while there can be moral reasons for doing so, profiteering does not count among them.
If it's impossible to detect insider trading in prediction markets then that's a strong sign there shouldn't be prediction markets. Both casinos and stock markets have strict laws to ensure...
If it's impossible to detect insider trading in prediction markets then that's a strong sign there shouldn't be prediction markets. Both casinos and stock markets have strict laws to ensure fairness, so either way you classify it, that kind of regulation is essential.
If insiders attempt to affect outcomes by making bets on both sides so that their interests are in conflict, that will tend to make the outcome less predictable, because you have to take into...
If insiders attempt to affect outcomes by making bets on both sides so that their interests are in conflict, that will tend to make the outcome less predictable, because you have to take into account the possibility of cheating.
How do you price that in? Markets don't magically make chaotic systems less chaotic.
To put the two other responses together. People are essentially betting on whether or not people will commit crimes. There are seemingly no checks in place preventing people from betting on...
To put the two other responses together. People are essentially betting on whether or not people will commit crimes. There are seemingly no checks in place preventing people from betting on themselves committing crimes. We now are in a state where members of governments bet on themselves committing crimes, and then doing the crimes, and then getting paid out for doing those crimes.
I agree that these are all very conceptually similar, but atm prediction markets are deliberately dodging gambling laws by insisting it isn't gambling.
I agree that these are all very conceptually similar, but atm prediction markets are deliberately dodging gambling laws by insisting it isn't gambling.
The lottery (specifically tickets, not scratch cards) feels very different to me, even though it technically is gambling, since it has a delay before finding the results. So it's not actively...
The lottery (specifically tickets, not scratch cards) feels very different to me, even though it technically is gambling, since it has a delay before finding the results. So it's not actively targeting people's impulses the same way casinos and other gambling options do, making it easier to limit yourself.
That, and people buy lottery tickets knowing they most likely won't win at all. The odds of winning are low enough that extended periods can pass with zero winners. With other forms of gambling though, people are more likely to expect to gain something because you CAN win in small increments. I went to a casino for the first time recently, and the first machine I tried gave me a few jackpots so I went from $10 to $15 worth of credits... And I then wasted all those credits on more plays on that machine until they got too low to continue.
I can really see now how people get so addicted to gambling. You win once and feel a high from it, and you become convinced it can happen again. The impulse targeting is stronger at casinos (pressing that button or lever was so easy), but that same high from victory applies to all gambling. Minus lottery tickets, because again, we don't really expect to win.
On Tuesday, March 10, a massive explosion shook the city of Beit Shemesh, just outside Jerusalem, in yet another Iranian ballistic missile attack during the ongoing war.
Rescue services scrambled to the scene in search of possible casualties, though as it turned out, the projectile had struck a forested area just outside the city, around 500 meters from homes.
On The Times of Israel’s liveblog that day, I reported that the missile had hit an open area and no injuries were caused, citing the rescue services, as well as footage that emerged showing the massive explosion caused by the missile’s warhead.
[...]
The event that these people had bet on was “Iran strikes Israel on…?” More than 14 million dollars had been wagered on March 10.
The rules of the bet state: “This market will resolve to ‘Yes’ if Iran initiates a drone, missile, or air strike on Israel’s soil on the listed date in Israel Time (GMT+2). Otherwise, this market will resolve to ‘No’.”
However, there is a clause: “Missiles or drones that are intercepted… will not be sufficient for a ‘Yes’ resolution, regardless of whether they land on Israeli territory or cause damage.”
My minor report on a missile striking an open area was now in the middle of a betting war, with those who had bet “No” on an Iranian strike on Israel on March 10 demanding I change my article to ensure they would win big.
[...]
Shortly after midnight between Saturday and Sunday, I started to receive threatening messages in Hebrew on WhatsApp from someone called Haim.
[...]
The attempt by these gamblers to pressure me to change my reporting so that they would win their bet did not and will not succeed. But I do worry that other journalists may not be as ethical if they are promised some of the winnings.
There is something bizarre about this situation, and the world we live in. Here the focus of the article is a less than credible death threat the writer received. We’re all outraged about this...
There is something bizarre about this situation, and the world we live in. Here the focus of the article is a less than credible death threat the writer received. We’re all outraged about this death threat and talking about the major legal changes needed to stop it.
But the backdrop of this story is a missile that got fired at the writer’s city. So the actual threat of death by a tangible missile is kind of brushed off, pushed to the background, treated as commonplace, whereas the online death threat becomes the star.
Polymarket should be illegal, and I'll reiterate again my position that we/society should remove from ourselves the ability to make online crimes like this without a 100% chance of trivially getting caught.
Agreed. As i've said before its been wild watching the world adopt gambling coming from Vegas. We've spent a VERY long time litigating gambling and trying to find a sweet spot between "city of vice" and "not being a rundown hell hole".
Regardless of how well we've done that, the things that have been allowed nationally and internationally, like polymarket, are fucking INSANE. Just like watching the entire world learn first principles finance by speedrunning every scam in Crypto, Polymarket, national sports betting, and mobile gaming have all been insane to me as every single one likely would've been out and out illegal from the get go in Vegas (and yes i know several headquarters are here and its a very hot subject).
At the very least it should be regulated (and preferably enforced) like other gambling. They're now skating by on the "predictions aren't bets" defense but it's getting thinner by the day.
Here's what I'd want-
Keep the casual fun and don't lose people's agency but prevent any life altering losses or motivation to corrupt the results.
I understand your point.
I don't have strong opinion on this topic, so I'm curious: where do you drive the line?
For me sport gambling, lottery, investing, and different types of speculation as well as prediction market all have similar root idea and not so different in a sense.
Conflict of interest seems like a reasonable starting point for where it becomes a problem?
Lotteries are random, so inherently safe on that front, although they often ban participation from employees anyway to avoid creating any incentives to mess with the RNG. Sports betting already bans players, managers, anyone who’d have the ability to throw the game in exchange for a big payout. Investing bans insider trading, or at least makes a cursory attempt to do so most of the time. Ish.
The big problem with Polymarket as it stands is the incentive to change the outcome if it’s within your power - either by betting on things you already control and changing the actual path of events, or by straight up criminal threats to create a false narrative as in this case.
My first impression was the conflict of interests would eventually become priced in, but on deeper thought I don’t think so. It seems analogous to insider trading in the stock market, and will distort markets (or statistical bets) and so is a problem. Hard to control or regulate when it’s difficult to know and it’s so accessible to so many people.
Yeah, I was thinking this one through a bit when a topic about Polymarket came up previously - if there’s a situation with an outcome that’s absolutely set in stone and can’t be changed, insider betting could maybe price itself in and actually add more information to the market (whether it’s fair to allow people to cash in on that is a whole other can of worms, but at least it’s not an actual conflict because the outcome’s predetermined). Problem is that very little in the real world is that definite, and if something is then people probably won’t bother betting on it in the first place!
Accounting for the squishy boundaries of the real world, you’ve got the classic conflict of just betting on something you control and then choosing the outcome so you win, but you’ve also got the meta-conflict of people using Polymarket itself as an information signal for other valuable decisions.
If you’re a company looking to buy out a competitor, and there’s a bet on whether the deal will go through, maybe you put $200m into Polymarket saying it won’t - people see that, the stock price of the competitor drops because everyone assumes the insiders know the deal has fallen through and they’re looking to win an easy bet on it, and you get to buy the competitor at a knock down price. As long as the stock drop saves you more than $200m on the purchase price, it’s worth deliberately losing the Polymarket bet to spread the doubt that makes it happen.
"Insider trading" is an intended part of polymarket. That's drawing in more information to make the price more accurate. Insider trading is not wanted for, say, stock markets, because people in the business of owning stock don't want to constantly be worried about whether or not they thing they're owning is about to get wrekt.
But polymarket isn't a stock market, and it doesn't particularly care about insider trading. It would say that, say, someone from the defense market putting in a bet for whether or not Iran is going to get bombed is doing exactly what the site was intended to do - that bet will put upward pressure on the value of bets that Iran will be bombed, and that's information and a closer probability to the real probability.
I think the fear is that the insider trading might get a little too inside and turn into more direct manipulation — for example, someone from the defense market actively promoting or undermining bombing efforts in Iran to win a bigger payout. Preventing conflicts of interest like these is one reason jurisdictions often make insider trading illegal.
Rather than asking whether "insider trading" is an intended feature, one should ask whether that is a good feature. Leaking classified military intelligence is a crime, and while there can be moral reasons for doing so, profiteering does not count among them.
If it's impossible to detect insider trading in prediction markets then that's a strong sign there shouldn't be prediction markets. Both casinos and stock markets have strict laws to ensure fairness, so either way you classify it, that kind of regulation is essential.
If insiders attempt to affect outcomes by making bets on both sides so that their interests are in conflict, that will tend to make the outcome less predictable, because you have to take into account the possibility of cheating.
How do you price that in? Markets don't magically make chaotic systems less chaotic.
To put the two other responses together. People are essentially betting on whether or not people will commit crimes. There are seemingly no checks in place preventing people from betting on themselves committing crimes. We now are in a state where members of governments bet on themselves committing crimes, and then doing the crimes, and then getting paid out for doing those crimes.
To start with, maybe anything specifically about war should be off limits?
Oh, that's a good and painful point. Agree.
I agree that these are all very conceptually similar, but atm prediction markets are deliberately dodging gambling laws by insisting it isn't gambling.
The lottery (specifically tickets, not scratch cards) feels very different to me, even though it technically is gambling, since it has a delay before finding the results. So it's not actively targeting people's impulses the same way casinos and other gambling options do, making it easier to limit yourself.
That, and people buy lottery tickets knowing they most likely won't win at all. The odds of winning are low enough that extended periods can pass with zero winners. With other forms of gambling though, people are more likely to expect to gain something because you CAN win in small increments. I went to a casino for the first time recently, and the first machine I tried gave me a few jackpots so I went from $10 to $15 worth of credits... And I then wasted all those credits on more plays on that machine until they got too low to continue.
I can really see now how people get so addicted to gambling. You win once and feel a high from it, and you become convinced it can happen again. The impulse targeting is stronger at casinos (pressing that button or lever was so easy), but that same high from victory applies to all gambling. Minus lottery tickets, because again, we don't really expect to win.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
[...]
There is something bizarre about this situation, and the world we live in. Here the focus of the article is a less than credible death threat the writer received. We’re all outraged about this death threat and talking about the major legal changes needed to stop it.
But the backdrop of this story is a missile that got fired at the writer’s city. So the actual threat of death by a tangible missile is kind of brushed off, pushed to the background, treated as commonplace, whereas the online death threat becomes the star.
It's a novelty. A forum where we shared links based solely on their importance in the world would probably be pretty dull.