The optics look really bad for the regime. One or two of the remaining hardcore maggots might come to their senses if they see open betting on the lives of American pilots, and at this point the regime needs all the help they can get to maintain legitimacy. Polymarket is a partially regime-owned enterprise and therefore has to work in the interests of the regime. But even putting this aside, any change would be bound to result in more regulatory scrutiny.
How are we supposed to come to a prediction, if wagers are disallowed?
The primary function of prediction markets is to reflect real world probabilities in terms of price in order to make better decisions. Without this function, we're acting in the dark.
If Pete Hegseth bets against the pilot’s rescue, then deliberately prevents the pilot’s rescue in order to win his bet, then that would not improve prediction-making or decision-making in any way.
Just because gambling in general is legal doesn't mean every possible gambling event is legal. If someone got caught hosting a dog fight, they don't get off the hook because gambling is legal. I can't think of a single reason why such laws against unethical or violent gambling shouldn't extend to human suffering as well.
As far as I understand, there is no suggestion that this wager is illegal.
It is just in bad taste and, from the POV of Polymarket bad publicity that they'd rather avoid (not least to avoid stricter regulations, which are being mulled).
Even here in the UK, where betting and bookmakers are legal and regulated, I think such bet is perfectly legal if you find a bookmaker to offer you odds on it.
Thats my point, the law has not caught up to new forms of gambling. The fact its legal to bet on whether another human being will live or die is not due to society condoning it. It's because when laws against such barbaric practices were implemented, nobody imagined they'd need to worry about people gambling on bad things happening to other human beings.
This is in part how creating laws is supposed to work. You legislate things when either something bad is happening or is likely to begin happening soon. When something new is comparable to existing unethical practices, the fact we have to update the laws is not an excuse for it being legal. Its just that the alternative is making laws based on whims or conjecture of what might happen.
Dogfights are illegal because it is cruel to let the dogs fight to death. It's s.th. different when events happen anyways and you just place bets on them.
That supposes that the events are decoupled from the bets, when we've already had several cases of people possibly betting on things they either have control over, or have insider info on.
Plus, all of the reports of people being bet on receiving threats.
It's like we've forgotten all about why gambling is so heavily regulated in most of the world. It always metastizes into a cancer upon society unless very carefully and strictly confined away.
> The pilots in Iran are decoupled from the bets on polymarket.
Why on earth would you believe this is true?
Pilots aren't idiots. They know something's brewing. That's inside info they can trade on, or call a friend or family member back home about. There've been plenty of indications of big betting market moves in advance of public announcements of things like this.
So the pilot that is currently on the run in Iran magically connects to the internet. Then he decides to surrender or call in help based on the bets his friends did on polymarket?
Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur.
This happens in sports betting as well, which is also regulated.
Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation. The only result would be increased bureaucracy and decreased technology advancement.
> Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur. > Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation.
I'm not sure how "still occur" became "the same result in both cases" - the latter is an extraordinary claim lacking any evidence.
Are you assuming that regulation is only admissible when it prevents every single event that is contrary to it?
Moreover, we are often seeing cases of regulation theater - the regulations in the books have convenient loopholes or are only selectively enforced, if at all.
Even in these cases it's a serious stretch to claim that the situations with and without regulation are materially the same.
How is this any different from betting on when Israel or America would invade Iran? Wouldn't Iranians be dying in an invasion?
USA and Israel good, Iran bad. Kindergarten logic. Works pretty well.
The optics look really bad for the regime. One or two of the remaining hardcore maggots might come to their senses if they see open betting on the lives of American pilots, and at this point the regime needs all the help they can get to maintain legitimacy. Polymarket is a partially regime-owned enterprise and therefore has to work in the interests of the regime. But even putting this aside, any change would be bound to result in more regulatory scrutiny.
Yeah but how many Iranians bet on Polymarket? /s
What an antisemitic thing to say
How are we supposed to come to a prediction, if wagers are disallowed?
The primary function of prediction markets is to reflect real world probabilities in terms of price in order to make better decisions. Without this function, we're acting in the dark.
> How are we supposed to come to a prediction, if wagers are disallowed?
The same way we predicted things before "prediction markets" suddenly showed up?
Without 'skin in the game'? Preposterous
> in order to make better decisions
If Pete Hegseth bets against the pilot’s rescue, then deliberately prevents the pilot’s rescue in order to win his bet, then that would not improve prediction-making or decision-making in any way.
Prediction markets should stick to the weather.
"free speech" in america...
Just because gambling in general is legal doesn't mean every possible gambling event is legal. If someone got caught hosting a dog fight, they don't get off the hook because gambling is legal. I can't think of a single reason why such laws against unethical or violent gambling shouldn't extend to human suffering as well.
Hosting an event isn't gambling, why are you conflating those?
As far as I understand, there is no suggestion that this wager is illegal.
It is just in bad taste and, from the POV of Polymarket bad publicity that they'd rather avoid (not least to avoid stricter regulations, which are being mulled).
Even here in the UK, where betting and bookmakers are legal and regulated, I think such bet is perfectly legal if you find a bookmaker to offer you odds on it.
Thats my point, the law has not caught up to new forms of gambling. The fact its legal to bet on whether another human being will live or die is not due to society condoning it. It's because when laws against such barbaric practices were implemented, nobody imagined they'd need to worry about people gambling on bad things happening to other human beings.
This is in part how creating laws is supposed to work. You legislate things when either something bad is happening or is likely to begin happening soon. When something new is comparable to existing unethical practices, the fact we have to update the laws is not an excuse for it being legal. Its just that the alternative is making laws based on whims or conjecture of what might happen.
Dogfights are illegal because it is cruel to let the dogs fight to death. It's s.th. different when events happen anyways and you just place bets on them.
That supposes that the events are decoupled from the bets, when we've already had several cases of people possibly betting on things they either have control over, or have insider info on.
Plus, all of the reports of people being bet on receiving threats.
It's like we've forgotten all about why gambling is so heavily regulated in most of the world. It always metastizes into a cancer upon society unless very carefully and strictly confined away.
> That supposes that the events are decoupled from the bets
The pilots in Iran are decoupled from the bets on polymarket. What are you talking about?
Cancer in society are intrusive persons who try to force their will upon others for no valid reason.
> The pilots in Iran are decoupled from the bets on polymarket.
Why on earth would you believe this is true?
Pilots aren't idiots. They know something's brewing. That's inside info they can trade on, or call a friend or family member back home about. There've been plenty of indications of big betting market moves in advance of public announcements of things like this.
So the pilot that is currently on the run in Iran magically connects to the internet. Then he decides to surrender or call in help based on the bets his friends did on polymarket?
> Why on earth would you believe this is true?
IQ above average.
It doesn't have to be the pilots on the ground in Iran.
The folks back at base are gonna know quickly if they successfully get found. Everyone there'll know before it hits the media.
Or the administration officials in the Pentagon who get the news. Place bet, then leak the good news to the press.
...is that even bad? It kinda seems good to have that signal before the military and media spin takes hold.
I was kinda on the fence about this debate, but your arguments have actually pushed me away.
Yes, it’s really bad.
Now you have to worry about troops having placed bets on outcomes they’re part of.
“Oh shit, I think I see the guy… but I lose $50k if I call out because I bet he wouldn’t be found today! Better be quiet.”
They are also essentially stealing from the counterparty on the bet. Same reason insider trading is illegal.
Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur.
This happens in sports betting as well, which is also regulated.
Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation. The only result would be increased bureaucracy and decreased technology advancement.
> Wall Street is heavily regulated, and yet both of your examples still occur. > Neither of your examples show a material change or resolution due to regulation.
I'm not sure how "still occur" became "the same result in both cases" - the latter is an extraordinary claim lacking any evidence.
Are you assuming that regulation is only admissible when it prevents every single event that is contrary to it?
Moreover, we are often seeing cases of regulation theater - the regulations in the books have convenient loopholes or are only selectively enforced, if at all.
Even in these cases it's a serious stretch to claim that the situations with and without regulation are materially the same.