That same account[0] has also already lost at least 100k betting on similar middle eastern conflict markets. Not at all ruling out insider information, certainly looks suspicious, but it’s easy just to find one big win or winner.
If you're looking for insiders it's generally helpful to start with the "survivors". Not because insiders can't lose but because winning insiders are those effectively exploiting their unfair knowledge. You need filters, so concentrate on the worst offenders first.
Of course, not all winners are insiders. You still need to filter more, but it's definitely the first filter. Big winners are the second, for the same reason: scale of exploitation.
Who thought this? Be careful with your wild use of we here. I'm not part of your we. Opening betting markets has only one ultimate ending where everything is done for the betting.
Prediction was certainly the pitch. I don't know how many people genuinely believed it, beyond the level required to extract a profit.
It's hard to measure what anyone actually believes in the current social landscape, where nobody tells the truth. Maybe that's the real purpose of prediction markets.
I remember people claiming that it would capture the wisdom of the crowds[0]. Seemed silly as wisdom of the crowds depends on independent decisions. As soon as you reveal other people's guesses you bias the results.
Actually, turns out "people claiming" includes Polymarket lol
# What is Polymarket
...
Our markets reflect accurate, unbiased, and real-time probabilities for the events that matter most to you. Markets seek truth.
# How accurate are Polymarket odds?
Research shows prediction markets are often more accurate than experts, polls, and pundits. .... Their economic incentives ensure market prices adjust to reflect true odds as more knowledgeable participants join.
This makes prediction markets the best source of real-time event probabilities. People use Polymarket for the most accurate odds, gaining the ability to make informed decisions about the future.
Sports betting has been around forever, and it has been gamed forever. Gambling is often an addiction and some cheating doesn’t stop people from doing it
To corrupt a Polymarket bet, there needs to be only one person with inside knowledge of a planned event's timing, outcome, duration, etc in order to destroy the other side. The vast majority of Polymarket-bettable events have at least a few dozen if not hundreds or thousands of people with prior knowledge. Polymarket is now a known market where they can (conveniently through crypto) participate. It is basically a billboard saying "do you have interesting inside knowledge? Come here and make some money!"
To corrupt a sport bet, there needs to be an actual manipulation of events perpetrated by a very small, very closely watched and analyzed group of people (athletes or officials).
In my view, it seems immediately obvious that as prediction markets become even more mainstream (and so the billboard effect gets stronger), Polymarket bets will have a significantly higher rate of corruption than sports bets.
The movie _Casino_ highlights how insider information was and is used to improve the house odds [0].
Information about a players wellbeing and their life goes a long way. Example, they would pay paper boys to talk to coaches to find out non public information. Such as if a player of the team is going through relationship problems.
All of which is significantly harder than putting up a gigantic billboard that says "Have insider knowledge on an important event? Place a bet here using crypto!"
Every important event in the world has dozens if not hundreds of people "in the know" before it happens. Not everyone has paper boys, chatty coaches, or the time/energy required to connect all those dots.
The entire flow insider information is reversed from "go out and look for it" to "invite it in anonymously"
Was the ", again" left off, or is this going to be the first time you've seen the movie when you do watch it? I know new people are born every day, but Casino is one of those movies that I'd have expected any one old enough to be reading this board to have seen already. This is no judgment on anyone for not seeing it. Just a comment on my skewed view of the world I guess
I didn't see it for the first time until like 2020. Nobody in my family was in to mobster movies and my friends in my 20s never brought it up to watch with me
The traditional espoused financial market purpose of these prediction markets is based on the premise that actors on it will have inside information.
The point is for business with vested interests (and therefore often inside information) to use these markets to hedge for things that will materially affect their profitability.
For example, in this case, suppose you ran a company that was shipping goods through the Middle East, and a war would disrupt your business. You would then place bets on there being a war, so that if it does happen you will recover some of your losses. You might know inside information because your work in the region, but that is expected.
Yeah, trying to beat the market on actually predicting will get you pretty lame returns. Probably do better in non zero sum games like the stock market. At least there you get the benefit of the market always going up eventually.
No, the best way to win on Polymarket is purely by insider trading. Which is why it's a useful thing to watch. Insider news..
That said, the definition of 'insider trading' is always tricky. At what point does it become insider? Some things people call insider others just call clever detective work.
> Yeah, trying to beat the market on actually predicting will get you pretty lame returns
That maybe true in a normal world, but we left normalcy in this world a couple of administrations ago. I absolutely would not put it past a member of this admin to be keeping an eye on things like this to suggest it would be better to start the attack on specific day just to pad the coffers. Any other admin, and I'd say that would be an insane line of thought, but it is this admin.
It's not useful to watch, almost by definition. If you're an insider obviously you want to sit on the information as long as possible and make a big bet just before it will be revealed. For example: the account in TFA whose bet was 71 minutes before the first news article about the attacks.
So how useful is it really to see a big bet and know that probably the thing in question will happen in the next hour?
The only kind of use case I can see for these markets is what another commenter mentioned, as a kind of strange insurance by betting against what you hope will happen. But even then, the finicky rules and untrustworthiness of the Polymarket admins make them much less reliable than a traditional insurance policy...
I think it's pretty obvious when betting on events that are inherently just decisions by one or a few people (e.g. when will Trump launch an attack on Iran, when will a company launch a new product, will some company acquire another one, etc.) that they will attract insider trading and corruption by their very nature - all that's necessary is to have information about the decision maker. This is fundamentally different than events that are subject to forces that no single individual controls - e.g. who will win an election, where will a crypto price be in a year, movie box office results, etc.
I think betting on "single decision maker" events is just a "sucker is born every minute"-type bet.
This is exactly what I wanted prediction markets for
Looks like “we” need to update our relationships with markets
Price discovery is a visualization of the collective conscious, and the evolution of markets gets closer and closer to direct exposure to an event. Share and derisk a transaction, cleanly, quickly
Reduce all frictions towards doing so
Frictions include finding the person making the transaction, negotiating with them, trusting them to perform, disputing resolution, insurance. These hamper anything from occurring, or occurring quickly, and the pricing is too variable. Prediction markets are an example of all of those frictions being reduced to almost non-existent. And dispute resolution will improve further and attract more liquidity.
They certainly could reduce friction in bribery, just make a public bet like "The court will decide in favor of XYZ Evil Corp v. United States", then buy "No" shares for a million dollars, and hope the judge in the case picks up a bunch of "Yes" shares. Quick, simple, effective bribery via cryptocurrencies.
they could, slightly suboptimal way of doing it but its there
crypto anarchist papers described prediction markets to be used for something like this in the 90s, but there are several levels of infrastructure that didn't exist then
if you are predicting such things are occurring then you could also buy the no shares, making it the most egalitarian social mobility opportunity out there. I think the focus on bribery and corruption is distracting because people are imagining exclusion, but its the opposite at this point.
Imagine when the soviet union fell and only people that built relationships got dibs on all the assets and revenue streams to become "the oligarchs" almost overnight, but instead of only them, everyone paying attention could take part in it. That's what is happening now and the markets will continue existing autonomously
I'm not putting my money in these markets for many reasons, ethical objections being one of them. Why'd I buy specifically "No" shares though? From my non-insider POV it's just a bet on the honesty of the judge, mixed with the actual facts of the case.
What's the incentive of betting if you're not an insider? You're better off putting you money on a fair coin toss, instead of hoping you'll somehow beat an openly rigged market.
How much have you yourself made in these sorts of markets?
Isn't exposing corruption a good thing? If betting markets are giving the masses access to knowledge about events that would normally be restricted from them, what is wrong with that? Information wants to be free. You can make use of metrics from betting markets without actively participating in them.
Anyone who's followed the news since the 2000s would have realized a strike on Iran would have happened around now.
Notice how the bettor hedged and bet on multiple days and hedged each of their bets with a "by" clause. This is a bog standard hedging strategy that anyone who's been to a racetrack would know.
On a separate note, gamified prediction markets should not exist - they create perverse incentives and are basically a gamification of futures contracts (which requires a degree of risk management and hedging experience the median individual simply lacks), but this specific example doesn't seem like insider trading, just a seasoned gambler who knows basic hedging strategy.
There are other much more lucrative, obfuscated, and legally defensible methods someone with insider information could take to monetize on insider information.
Using a public betting platform with KYC vetting is not that.
Because we don't want people whose profession is maximally exploiting perverse incentive structures to flourish. A society that grants outsized rewards to bad faith citizens is bad for everyone. The more influence those cheaters have over the economy the worse off we all are.
You should not be able to get rich to the tune of a 600% daily return just because you're insider trading. That doesn't incentivize sharing your information with the market. On the contrary that incentivizes delaying communicating your secret information until the last second to maximize the return on your unexpected information.
1. It gives people a reason to influence events toward outcomes that they can make money on rather than the best outcome. The geopolitical equivalent of going down in the fourth on purpose.
2. It encourages the leaking of classified information.
To quote golden age Simpsons - "Gambling is the finest thing a person can do IF he's good at it" [0].
In aggregate, most participants lack the background and experience needed to hedge against risk and bet intelligently.
Gamifying a financial instrument (futures) that is supposed to be used as an risk management device and advertising it to the lowest common denominator without providing the right checks and balances will leave a large portion of bettors worse off.
Heck, I'm decently good at blackjack, poker, and backgammon because it's fun to apply probability theory principles, but I would never dare put my personal money on such an investment when I would do significantly better in aggregate with other more diversified personal investments.
What I mean is they placed multiples bets saying "US strikes Iran by $DATE" and set a window of various dates with each overlapping over the other in order to help hedge against earlier bets failing.
Betting a strike would be on Friday also tracks - anyone who's been outside the West knows they have Friday/Saturday off in Muslim and Jewish countries. It's the same way we in the West tend to conduct strikes on Saturday.
I responded to exactly what you mean. The lowest probability date was the Friday because Friday was almost over, it had the highest ROI. It didn't have liquidity for their full amount capital without adversely altering their potential ROI. They searched for liquidity in other markets that would resolve "yes" to the same event. It wasn't a hedge, it wasn't uncertainty, it was liquidity seeking.
Maybe, but also the strike was super telegraphed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when USA pulls its embassy staff from israel, britian pulls its embassy staff from iran and USA creates the biggest build up of military hardware in the region in 20 years, that shit is about to go down.
Especially when everyone notices the polymarket bets that win big but nobody notices the ones that fall on their face. There is huge survivorship bias in these sorts of analyses
It's a funny balance between insiders and outsiders. I would say for events like this, it's not even clear where line is, in a way that is very clear for public companies.
Clearly, a staffer in the MoD who knows what's going on and places a "bet" is bad. But is "private" information even well defined here? If a well funded HF asks 50 staffers "is Iran going to be invaded today", they all say "of course not, we're negotiating" but 3 look uncomfortable, is that MNPO? If a civilian provider, not sworn to secrecy, receives a large order indicative of some military action, then places bets, is that insider trading?
My point is less that it's fine, and more that it was a good thing to keep them banned, until and unless we figure out a better way to regulate them.
Public markets are different because the concept of "insider" information is so clearly defined and almost central to all information processing. Government business has other priorities than "how to we keep all gamblers chances equal".
>Iran which is why Israel struck at daytime because
Israel struck because they had info that some people were going to be at a specific place at a specific time. One would suppose they could have chosen Saturday for another reason only if they had the luxury of continuous intelligence providing multiple options with equal chances of success. In that case, choosing that day to avoid unnecessary economic volatilty for you and your allies makes sense.
When I worked the military (not the US), we'd get some briefs from time to time on risks like espionage. They'd present us with cases, and It always surprise me just how little money people are willing to risk their lives and careers for. You'd think people that are willing at worst to become traitors, but at best break confidentiality laws - and face years in prison - would do it only for life-changing money. Nope, not even close. People have gone to prison for a fraction of $500k.
If someone truly made this bet with inside information, they for sure broke laws. Not only did they do that, they could have jeopardized parts of the mission.
No doubt in my mind, part of OSINT gathering for most intel agencies is to monitor these betting markets.
I mean, one of the purported utilities of this sort of betting market is that they "make hidden information public", so they explicitly encourage "insider" trading. But I don't see how it's that useful to know (or "know" with a fair amount of uncertainty) of the attack only 71 minutes before the news break.
These betting markets create a wild new perverse incentive to power. No need to get gifts from business interests. Just be in the room where it happens and extract piles of cash from betting markets.
These markets claimed to be useful tools for discovering truth. I'm not sure what being able to maybe predict a military strike a bit earlier provides to society, but I do know that creating a system for near-unlimited wealth extraction for those with power is a very bad thing.
On the other hand, these are markets, right? Your ability to make profit is limited by the available liquidity. I wonder, if enough people get burned by insider trading, will liquidity dry up? At the same time, I suppose you don’t need that much volume to make a decent amount of money. And these platforms keep growing…
If you play at a casino, you’re statistically guarantee to lose money, edge cases not withstanding. Do you see casinos closing down because people stop playing?
A sucker is born every minute, and I personally don't think it's great to create more effective channels for funneling money from suckers to corrupt politicians.
They don’t allow unlimited “extraction” of wealth. It is inherently limited by the need for people to take the other side of a trade.
Importantly, people who either thought they had better information (and were sadly wrong) or people who were simply gambling. It’s not like prediction markets are taking money from orphanages.
Has anyone analyzed the odds on particular days to see if there’s a chance that the timing was influenced by the amount to be made on the betting market and not the other way around?
I don't think that the suggestion is true, but it's far from outlandish. Are you seriously suggesting the US president rugpulled his supporters with crypto? Are you seriously suggesting the entire US government and academia is tied to a sex trafficking ring? Are you seriously suggesting that the current US president's cabinet contains 20 appointees whose main qualification is being Fox News personalities? Etc etc.
lol fair enough. I only meant that in this case the amount is so small as to be insignificant. If you can choose when the US/Israel bombs Iran then 500k is nothing.
I don't think Trump himself is making the call based on making $500k, but if some dipshit 22-year-old sociopath is weighing in on which attack plan to go with, I think it's entirely possible that he might lobby for the one that most effectively lines his own pockets.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but calling it insider trading misses the entire point of what prediction markets are built for.
The goal of a prediction market is to be able to forecast the future as accurately as possible. Restricting informed traders weakens the mechanism that makes them useful.
Money signals how strongly someone believes something will happen.
Please look at the name again. It's "prediction" market. So if you have credible information before resolution, it's no longer a prediction.
Also your premise is incorrect. The goal of prediction market isn't that. It's to represent wisdom of crowd. Informed traders who can influence the outcome are no longer using any wisdom, nor they're part of the crowd.
The actual economic theory behind prediction markets (if you read Robin Hanson's work, efficient market hypothesis, etc.) is that these markets work precisely because informed traders bring private information into the price. That's literally the core mechanism that underpins them.
Yes prediction markets represent "wisdom of crowd", and they do this by rewarding people who contribute correct information. So informed traders are the ones making the system work, and they're putting actual money on the line to back up their claim. Without them you're just left with uninformed guesses, which isn't really "wisdom of crowds", it's noise.
Informed trader needs to be properly defined. Suppose a person just does some research at individual level (read, OSINT, make their own computer models to do prediction etc), then that's permissible.
But if you're defining an informed trader to already know the answer, then it's problematic. I hope you see that as well. The market should reward some logically deduced conclusion, not power. That's my position.
Also it's not noise, an average trader is not choosing a random number between (0,1). They can do research and their guess can be informed. Hence, the use of word wisdom. By your definition, this is gambling then.
Yeah I think where we fundamentally disagree is what prediction markets should be optimizing for.
If the goal is to produce the most accurate forecast possible, then informed traders (especially asymmetrically informed traders) are a feature of the system, not a bug. The market is a system for discovering the truth, and it generally rewards whoever brings that truth to the table first.
If the goal is to create a fair playing field where the crowd collectively arrives at an answer, then yeah someone with private information becomes problematic.
But I'd argue that's optimizing for fairness at the cost of accuracy, and accuracy is much more important.
Just ban these services. There’s no legitimate purpose in betting on people being shot or blown up. And the only people who could win reliably, are the people doing the shooting.
It was pretty obvious it would happen this weekend, no corruption needed.
The Iran protests happened, Iran massacred a bunch of protesters, Trump said "Help is on the way". Then US aircraft carriers started moving towards the middle east. Trump started negotiating with Iran, making demands Iran would never agree to. Trump gave his usual ultimatums, aircraft carriers finally got into position, Iran still being belligerent, and nearing the end of Trump's ultimatum... Like, all the signs were there. There's a strange consistency to Trump's erratic behaviour...
Plans were changed last minute because an opportunity arose to take out Iran's leader. It was obvious something was going to happen, but not what or when. The American war fleet deploying would've served as an effective containment strategy if the US military would do another simple kidnapping like they did in Venezuela.
The large protests passed their peaks a while ago. The American military has been deploying to the area for a while. This attack could've happened any day in the past weeks, or it could've taken another couple of weeks of shit flinging, slow escalation, and meaningless threats from Iran's government.
Yes, generally both sides of the book balance (minus a cut for the bookie). But there's not automatically another exactly opposite bet of the same size lol.
Saying "someone lost $500k" definitely implies one person. 10,000 people losing $50 isn't noteworthy.
And someone at the door? If you see 3 people, you don't say someone. You'd only say someone if you're expecting it to be one person (which it usually is knocking at a door).
But in this case I guess there wasn't enough pushback. And the thing that made it if not obvious certainly rather likely was the aircraft carrier movement which isn't exactly subtle, though very often just used for intimidation.
The thing which is at least a little surprising is the talk about aircraft carriers being very vulnerable to attack with drones / cheap missiles / etc. didn't materialize and if it were going to, Iran would be the one to realize it unless a full on world war were to erupt.
I feel like he mostly chickens out on tarrifs or things that have a large potential for high costs or where the opponent has some actual leverage.
Here he is blowing up Iran. Iran doesnt really have the ability to blow up america in return. This is exactly the sort of thing i would expect him to follow through on.
> The thing which is at least a little surprising is the talk about aircraft carriers being very vulnerable to attack with drones / cheap missiles / etc.
I think that is because it was largely wishful thinking. At least when it comes to Iranian capabilities. I dont think people who were experts in the field believed Iran had the capabilities to seriously harm american aircraft carriers.
I mean Trump did say he was going to. It's not an outlandish bet.
Also this needs waaay more information before you can say if it is statistically significant. How much did they stand to lose? How many other people made similar bets? Etc.
"That “brand new account” was created in October 2024 and has 88 predictions based upon your own evidence.”
https://x.com/pearsonm103/status/2028176543264969145
That same account[0] has also already lost at least 100k betting on similar middle eastern conflict markets. Not at all ruling out insider information, certainly looks suspicious, but it’s easy just to find one big win or winner.
[0] https://polymarket.com/@magamyman
Yes this is just survivorship bias.
Polymarket is huge some people are bound to have impressive runs.
This person hand multiple stacked bets for this outcome by varying dates.
Of course, not all winners are insiders. You still need to filter more, but it's definitely the first filter. Big winners are the second, for the same reason: scale of exploitation.
Her response is amazing. I am paraphrasing. "I lied who cares"
FTR, her actual response was
Your "paraphrasing" is as much of a lie as her original post was.
We thought betting markets would bring out our best predictions. Instead they’re exposing our inherent corruption.
Who thought this? Be careful with your wild use of we here. I'm not part of your we. Opening betting markets has only one ultimate ending where everything is done for the betting.
Prediction was certainly the pitch. I don't know how many people genuinely believed it, beyond the level required to extract a profit.
It's hard to measure what anyone actually believes in the current social landscape, where nobody tells the truth. Maybe that's the real purpose of prediction markets.
I remember people claiming that it would capture the wisdom of the crowds[0]. Seemed silly as wisdom of the crowds depends on independent decisions. As soon as you reveal other people's guesses you bias the results.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
Edit:
Actually, turns out "people claiming" includes Polymarket lol
What a load of BS. "Research shows"? Bull!https://help.polymarket.com/en/articles/13364060-what-is-pol...
Donald Jr, on the Polymarket board, might have tried that.
Insider gambling has been common since the invention of gambling I think.
Most gambling "games" are quite a lot harder to acquire and use insider knowledge on though.
People don't play in corrupt markets for very long.
Sports betting has been around forever, and it has been gamed forever. Gambling is often an addiction and some cheating doesn’t stop people from doing it
To corrupt a Polymarket bet, there needs to be only one person with inside knowledge of a planned event's timing, outcome, duration, etc in order to destroy the other side. The vast majority of Polymarket-bettable events have at least a few dozen if not hundreds or thousands of people with prior knowledge. Polymarket is now a known market where they can (conveniently through crypto) participate. It is basically a billboard saying "do you have interesting inside knowledge? Come here and make some money!"
To corrupt a sport bet, there needs to be an actual manipulation of events perpetrated by a very small, very closely watched and analyzed group of people (athletes or officials).
In my view, it seems immediately obvious that as prediction markets become even more mainstream (and so the billboard effect gets stronger), Polymarket bets will have a significantly higher rate of corruption than sports bets.
The movie _Casino_ highlights how insider information was and is used to improve the house odds [0].
Information about a players wellbeing and their life goes a long way. Example, they would pay paper boys to talk to coaches to find out non public information. Such as if a player of the team is going through relationship problems.
[0] https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/524-casino
All of which is significantly harder than putting up a gigantic billboard that says "Have insider knowledge on an important event? Place a bet here using crypto!"
Every important event in the world has dozens if not hundreds of people "in the know" before it happens. Not everyone has paper boys, chatty coaches, or the time/energy required to connect all those dots.
The entire flow insider information is reversed from "go out and look for it" to "invite it in anonymously"
Scorsese and De Niro, looking forward to watching.
Was the ", again" left off, or is this going to be the first time you've seen the movie when you do watch it? I know new people are born every day, but Casino is one of those movies that I'd have expected any one old enough to be reading this board to have seen already. This is no judgment on anyone for not seeing it. Just a comment on my skewed view of the world I guess
Well I just saw Goodfellas the other day... :D yeah this one I missed, lucky 10k!
I didn't see it for the first time until like 2020. Nobody in my family was in to mobster movies and my friends in my 20s never brought it up to watch with me
It's a classic though for sure
"People don't play in corrupt markets for very long." ... ahhh, it's not a bug with Polymarket - it's a feature.
Someone has to take the other side of the bet. As these stories become more common and well-known, it'll degrade the market
All I've ever seen is it encouraging people and not discouraging them. The thrill of the easy money, right?
Forget it jake, it's Polymarket.
This stuff is turning me off of prediction markets and I'm actually a huge fan of them conceptually (and have bet on them myself for quite a while).
As the billboard glow inviting insiders to trade gets brighter, the markets get less useful, less fun, less interesting, and obviously less rewarding.
The traditional espoused financial market purpose of these prediction markets is based on the premise that actors on it will have inside information.
The point is for business with vested interests (and therefore often inside information) to use these markets to hedge for things that will materially affect their profitability.
For example, in this case, suppose you ran a company that was shipping goods through the Middle East, and a war would disrupt your business. You would then place bets on there being a war, so that if it does happen you will recover some of your losses. You might know inside information because your work in the region, but that is expected.
Did anyone really think that? The corruption is inherently far, far easier than accurate predictions.
Yeah, trying to beat the market on actually predicting will get you pretty lame returns. Probably do better in non zero sum games like the stock market. At least there you get the benefit of the market always going up eventually.
No, the best way to win on Polymarket is purely by insider trading. Which is why it's a useful thing to watch. Insider news..
That said, the definition of 'insider trading' is always tricky. At what point does it become insider? Some things people call insider others just call clever detective work.
> Yeah, trying to beat the market on actually predicting will get you pretty lame returns
That maybe true in a normal world, but we left normalcy in this world a couple of administrations ago. I absolutely would not put it past a member of this admin to be keeping an eye on things like this to suggest it would be better to start the attack on specific day just to pad the coffers. Any other admin, and I'd say that would be an insane line of thought, but it is this admin.
It's not useful to watch, almost by definition. If you're an insider obviously you want to sit on the information as long as possible and make a big bet just before it will be revealed. For example: the account in TFA whose bet was 71 minutes before the first news article about the attacks.
So how useful is it really to see a big bet and know that probably the thing in question will happen in the next hour?
The only kind of use case I can see for these markets is what another commenter mentioned, as a kind of strange insurance by betting against what you hope will happen. But even then, the finicky rules and untrustworthiness of the Polymarket admins make them much less reliable than a traditional insurance policy...
Only for very narrow definitions of "we".
I think it's pretty obvious when betting on events that are inherently just decisions by one or a few people (e.g. when will Trump launch an attack on Iran, when will a company launch a new product, will some company acquire another one, etc.) that they will attract insider trading and corruption by their very nature - all that's necessary is to have information about the decision maker. This is fundamentally different than events that are subject to forces that no single individual controls - e.g. who will win an election, where will a crypto price be in a year, movie box office results, etc.
I think betting on "single decision maker" events is just a "sucker is born every minute"-type bet.
They actually encourage insider trading as to influence the prediction and make it more accurate.
Some insider selling changes the prediction downwards
The WANT the information
Those aren't mutually exclusive. The best predictions are going to be those based on non public information.
The best predictions are made when you already know the answer.
And even better when others wrongfully think they know a better answer...
We knew that already from every betting market in the history of betting markets
I definitely never thought so. It seemed primary as an unregulated casino to me - which usually implies criminality and frauds.
I dont think I was special or unusual.
People have been saying the same about crypto in general, yet, here we are. Another level of the scam built on top of a scam.
This is exactly what I wanted prediction markets for
Looks like “we” need to update our relationships with markets
Price discovery is a visualization of the collective conscious, and the evolution of markets gets closer and closer to direct exposure to an event. Share and derisk a transaction, cleanly, quickly
Reduce all frictions towards doing so
Frictions include finding the person making the transaction, negotiating with them, trusting them to perform, disputing resolution, insurance. These hamper anything from occurring, or occurring quickly, and the pricing is too variable. Prediction markets are an example of all of those frictions being reduced to almost non-existent. And dispute resolution will improve further and attract more liquidity.
They certainly could reduce friction in bribery, just make a public bet like "The court will decide in favor of XYZ Evil Corp v. United States", then buy "No" shares for a million dollars, and hope the judge in the case picks up a bunch of "Yes" shares. Quick, simple, effective bribery via cryptocurrencies.
they could, slightly suboptimal way of doing it but its there
crypto anarchist papers described prediction markets to be used for something like this in the 90s, but there are several levels of infrastructure that didn't exist then
if you are predicting such things are occurring then you could also buy the no shares, making it the most egalitarian social mobility opportunity out there. I think the focus on bribery and corruption is distracting because people are imagining exclusion, but its the opposite at this point.
Imagine when the soviet union fell and only people that built relationships got dibs on all the assets and revenue streams to become "the oligarchs" almost overnight, but instead of only them, everyone paying attention could take part in it. That's what is happening now and the markets will continue existing autonomously
I'm not putting my money in these markets for many reasons, ethical objections being one of them. Why'd I buy specifically "No" shares though? From my non-insider POV it's just a bet on the honesty of the judge, mixed with the actual facts of the case.
What's the incentive of betting if you're not an insider? You're better off putting you money on a fair coin toss, instead of hoping you'll somehow beat an openly rigged market.
How much have you yourself made in these sorts of markets?
if it is not regulated, you can always safely assume that it is a scam / corruption :) almost universally applicable
Isn't exposing corruption a good thing? If betting markets are giving the masses access to knowledge about events that would normally be restricted from them, what is wrong with that? Information wants to be free. You can make use of metrics from betting markets without actively participating in them.
Anyone who's followed the news since the 2000s would have realized a strike on Iran would have happened around now.
Notice how the bettor hedged and bet on multiple days and hedged each of their bets with a "by" clause. This is a bog standard hedging strategy that anyone who's been to a racetrack would know.
On a separate note, gamified prediction markets should not exist - they create perverse incentives and are basically a gamification of futures contracts (which requires a degree of risk management and hedging experience the median individual simply lacks), but this specific example doesn't seem like insider trading, just a seasoned gambler who knows basic hedging strategy.
> this specific example doesn't seem like insider trading, just a seasoned gambler who knows basic hedging strategy.
why can't it be both? you think degenerate gamblers have never had a government job?
There are other much more lucrative, obfuscated, and legally defensible methods someone with insider information could take to monetize on insider information.
Using a public betting platform with KYC vetting is not that.
> prediction markets should not exist
If you don't like prediction markets, you don't have to use them.
Why do you think other people shouldn't be allowed to use prediction markets if they want to?
Because we don't want people whose profession is maximally exploiting perverse incentive structures to flourish. A society that grants outsized rewards to bad faith citizens is bad for everyone. The more influence those cheaters have over the economy the worse off we all are.
You should not be able to get rich to the tune of a 600% daily return just because you're insider trading. That doesn't incentivize sharing your information with the market. On the contrary that incentivizes delaying communicating your secret information until the last second to maximize the return on your unexpected information.
1. It gives people a reason to influence events toward outcomes that they can make money on rather than the best outcome. The geopolitical equivalent of going down in the fourth on purpose.
2. It encourages the leaking of classified information.
To quote golden age Simpsons - "Gambling is the finest thing a person can do IF he's good at it" [0].
In aggregate, most participants lack the background and experience needed to hedge against risk and bet intelligently.
Gamifying a financial instrument (futures) that is supposed to be used as an risk management device and advertising it to the lowest common denominator without providing the right checks and balances will leave a large portion of bettors worse off.
Heck, I'm decently good at blackjack, poker, and backgammon because it's fun to apply probability theory principles, but I would never dare put my personal money on such an investment when I would do significantly better in aggregate with other more diversified personal investments.
[0] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Viz_cr8PCkk
No they were not hedging they were seeking liquidity because they couldnt get a total fill and ROI in the lowest probability market
What I mean is they placed multiples bets saying "US strikes Iran by $DATE" and set a window of various dates with each overlapping over the other in order to help hedge against earlier bets failing.
Betting a strike would be on Friday also tracks - anyone who's been outside the West knows they have Friday/Saturday off in Muslim and Jewish countries. It's the same way we in the West tend to conduct strikes on Saturday.
Edit: Ah I get what you are saying now.
I responded to exactly what you mean. The lowest probability date was the Friday because Friday was almost over, it had the highest ROI. It didn't have liquidity for their full amount capital without adversely altering their potential ROI. They searched for liquidity in other markets that would resolve "yes" to the same event. It wasn't a hedge, it wasn't uncertainty, it was liquidity seeking.
"insider trading" for me
"harmless betting" for thee
Maybe, but also the strike was super telegraphed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when USA pulls its embassy staff from israel, britian pulls its embassy staff from iran and USA creates the biggest build up of military hardware in the region in 20 years, that shit is about to go down.
Especially when everyone notices the polymarket bets that win big but nobody notices the ones that fall on their face. There is huge survivorship bias in these sorts of analyses
It's a funny balance between insiders and outsiders. I would say for events like this, it's not even clear where line is, in a way that is very clear for public companies.
Clearly, a staffer in the MoD who knows what's going on and places a "bet" is bad. But is "private" information even well defined here? If a well funded HF asks 50 staffers "is Iran going to be invaded today", they all say "of course not, we're negotiating" but 3 look uncomfortable, is that MNPO? If a civilian provider, not sworn to secrecy, receives a large order indicative of some military action, then places bets, is that insider trading?
My point is less that it's fine, and more that it was a good thing to keep them banned, until and unless we figure out a better way to regulate them.
Public markets are different because the concept of "insider" information is so clearly defined and almost central to all information processing. Government business has other priorities than "how to we keep all gamblers chances equal".
Considering the scale of these events I feel like the insiders aren't really value betting appropriately (not to hurry them).
Why are most recent US foreign actions taken during the weekend, when the markets are closed?
To soften the economic blow in a fast paced media cycle.
Saturday is the first day of the working week in Iran which is why Israel struck at daytime when senior leadership was in a working meeting.
>Iran which is why Israel struck at daytime because
Israel struck because they had info that some people were going to be at a specific place at a specific time. One would suppose they could have chosen Saturday for another reason only if they had the luxury of continuous intelligence providing multiple options with equal chances of success. In that case, choosing that day to avoid unnecessary economic volatilty for you and your allies makes sense.
When I worked the military (not the US), we'd get some briefs from time to time on risks like espionage. They'd present us with cases, and It always surprise me just how little money people are willing to risk their lives and careers for. You'd think people that are willing at worst to become traitors, but at best break confidentiality laws - and face years in prison - would do it only for life-changing money. Nope, not even close. People have gone to prison for a fraction of $500k.
If someone truly made this bet with inside information, they for sure broke laws. Not only did they do that, they could have jeopardized parts of the mission.
No doubt in my mind, part of OSINT gathering for most intel agencies is to monitor these betting markets.
I mean, one of the purported utilities of this sort of betting market is that they "make hidden information public", so they explicitly encourage "insider" trading. But I don't see how it's that useful to know (or "know" with a fair amount of uncertainty) of the attack only 71 minutes before the news break.
It is unfortunate that Polymarket did not exist prior to 9/11. It would have been very telling.
These betting markets create a wild new perverse incentive to power. No need to get gifts from business interests. Just be in the room where it happens and extract piles of cash from betting markets.
These markets claimed to be useful tools for discovering truth. I'm not sure what being able to maybe predict a military strike a bit earlier provides to society, but I do know that creating a system for near-unlimited wealth extraction for those with power is a very bad thing.
On the other hand, these are markets, right? Your ability to make profit is limited by the available liquidity. I wonder, if enough people get burned by insider trading, will liquidity dry up? At the same time, I suppose you don’t need that much volume to make a decent amount of money. And these platforms keep growing…
If you play at a casino, you’re statistically guarantee to lose money, edge cases not withstanding. Do you see casinos closing down because people stop playing?
No one is forcing anyone to bet on prediction markets. People use polymarket fully aware of the near certainty of insider trading.
A sucker is born every minute, and I personally don't think it's great to create more effective channels for funneling money from suckers to corrupt politicians.
This is such a ridiculous cope that these betting platforms provide any other value than entertainment. But they must sell themselves somehow I guess.
They don’t allow unlimited “extraction” of wealth. It is inherently limited by the need for people to take the other side of a trade.
Importantly, people who either thought they had better information (and were sadly wrong) or people who were simply gambling. It’s not like prediction markets are taking money from orphanages.
Has anyone analyzed the odds on particular days to see if there’s a chance that the timing was influenced by the amount to be made on the betting market and not the other way around?
Are you seriously suggesting that someone timed this military strike in order to make $500k?
I don't think that the suggestion is true, but it's far from outlandish. Are you seriously suggesting the US president rugpulled his supporters with crypto? Are you seriously suggesting the entire US government and academia is tied to a sex trafficking ring? Are you seriously suggesting that the current US president's cabinet contains 20 appointees whose main qualification is being Fox News personalities? Etc etc.
lol fair enough. I only meant that in this case the amount is so small as to be insignificant. If you can choose when the US/Israel bombs Iran then 500k is nothing.
I don't think Trump himself is making the call based on making $500k, but if some dipshit 22-year-old sociopath is weighing in on which attack plan to go with, I think it's entirely possible that he might lobby for the one that most effectively lines his own pockets.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but calling it insider trading misses the entire point of what prediction markets are built for.
The goal of a prediction market is to be able to forecast the future as accurately as possible. Restricting informed traders weakens the mechanism that makes them useful.
Money signals how strongly someone believes something will happen.
No.
Please look at the name again. It's "prediction" market. So if you have credible information before resolution, it's no longer a prediction.
Also your premise is incorrect. The goal of prediction market isn't that. It's to represent wisdom of crowd. Informed traders who can influence the outcome are no longer using any wisdom, nor they're part of the crowd.
The actual economic theory behind prediction markets (if you read Robin Hanson's work, efficient market hypothesis, etc.) is that these markets work precisely because informed traders bring private information into the price. That's literally the core mechanism that underpins them.
Yes prediction markets represent "wisdom of crowd", and they do this by rewarding people who contribute correct information. So informed traders are the ones making the system work, and they're putting actual money on the line to back up their claim. Without them you're just left with uninformed guesses, which isn't really "wisdom of crowds", it's noise.
Informed trader needs to be properly defined. Suppose a person just does some research at individual level (read, OSINT, make their own computer models to do prediction etc), then that's permissible.
But if you're defining an informed trader to already know the answer, then it's problematic. I hope you see that as well. The market should reward some logically deduced conclusion, not power. That's my position.
Also it's not noise, an average trader is not choosing a random number between (0,1). They can do research and their guess can be informed. Hence, the use of word wisdom. By your definition, this is gambling then.
Yeah I think where we fundamentally disagree is what prediction markets should be optimizing for.
If the goal is to produce the most accurate forecast possible, then informed traders (especially asymmetrically informed traders) are a feature of the system, not a bug. The market is a system for discovering the truth, and it generally rewards whoever brings that truth to the table first.
If the goal is to create a fair playing field where the crowd collectively arrives at an answer, then yeah someone with private information becomes problematic.
But I'd argue that's optimizing for fairness at the cost of accuracy, and accuracy is much more important.
Just ban these services. There’s no legitimate purpose in betting on people being shot or blown up. And the only people who could win reliably, are the people doing the shooting.
With rules like that, we'll never get to have TV shows like The Running Man.
I look forward to your future policies based on the "no legitimate purpose" doctrine.
What was the payout rate?
Kalshi's pulling a "he's not out of power, he's dead" technicality, apparently. https://bsky.app/profile/slukemorgan.bsky.social/post/3mfyzr...
> "we design the rules to prevent people from profiting from death"
Read the fine print!
Its akin to binary options its just whatever your fill was at
It was pretty obvious it would happen this weekend, no corruption needed.
The Iran protests happened, Iran massacred a bunch of protesters, Trump said "Help is on the way". Then US aircraft carriers started moving towards the middle east. Trump started negotiating with Iran, making demands Iran would never agree to. Trump gave his usual ultimatums, aircraft carriers finally got into position, Iran still being belligerent, and nearing the end of Trump's ultimatum... Like, all the signs were there. There's a strange consistency to Trump's erratic behaviour...
Plans were changed last minute because an opportunity arose to take out Iran's leader. It was obvious something was going to happen, but not what or when. The American war fleet deploying would've served as an effective containment strategy if the US military would do another simple kidnapping like they did in Venezuela.
The large protests passed their peaks a while ago. The American military has been deploying to the area for a while. This attack could've happened any day in the past weeks, or it could've taken another couple of weeks of shit flinging, slow escalation, and meaningless threats from Iran's government.
Somehow, someone still lost $500k against that bet. Not that kind of 'obvious' then.
Doesn't mean everyone's always paying attention.
Also, do you have a link that someone lost $500k? Because it's not in the original link.
If someone made 500k, then someone lost 500k.
Any money you win gambling has to come from someone else, it doesn't just appear.
So you don't know anything about gambling lol.
Yes, generally both sides of the book balance (minus a cut for the bookie). But there's not automatically another exactly opposite bet of the same size lol.
I don't think knallfrosch's post was implying it was a singular someone.
Like if you say "someone is at the door", you don't literally mean that exactly one person is at the door.
Saying "someone lost $500k" definitely implies one person. 10,000 people losing $50 isn't noteworthy.
And someone at the door? If you see 3 people, you don't say someone. You'd only say someone if you're expecting it to be one person (which it usually is knocking at a door).
Nah, it was the surf & turf in the chow hall.
To be fair, Trump usually chickens out.
But in this case I guess there wasn't enough pushback. And the thing that made it if not obvious certainly rather likely was the aircraft carrier movement which isn't exactly subtle, though very often just used for intimidation.
The thing which is at least a little surprising is the talk about aircraft carriers being very vulnerable to attack with drones / cheap missiles / etc. didn't materialize and if it were going to, Iran would be the one to realize it unless a full on world war were to erupt.
> To be fair, Trump usually chickens out.
I feel like he mostly chickens out on tarrifs or things that have a large potential for high costs or where the opponent has some actual leverage.
Here he is blowing up Iran. Iran doesnt really have the ability to blow up america in return. This is exactly the sort of thing i would expect him to follow through on.
> The thing which is at least a little surprising is the talk about aircraft carriers being very vulnerable to attack with drones / cheap missiles / etc.
I think that is because it was largely wishful thinking. At least when it comes to Iranian capabilities. I dont think people who were experts in the field believed Iran had the capabilities to seriously harm american aircraft carriers.
I mean Trump did say he was going to. It's not an outlandish bet.
Also this needs waaay more information before you can say if it is statistically significant. How much did they stand to lose? How many other people made similar bets? Etc.
As it stands this is not a story.