> The irony of prediction markets is that they are supposed to be a more trustworthy way of gleaning the future than internet clickbait and half-baked punditry, but they risk shredding whatever shared trust we still have left. The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phenomenal luck that netted a roughly $400,000 payout. Or maybe someone with inside information was looking for easy money.
I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it. I thought the whole point was that yes, people with inside knowledge will bet large sums of money on things they expect to happen, and that's what makes the prediction useful. The market is meant to incentivize people who know things to act on them in a way that makes them known.
If I knew someone wanted me dead, of course I would want a prediction market on it, and if the odds suddenly shifted dramatically in favor of my death, I would use that as a trigger for whatever defense strategies I had in place. Someone has really good reason to bet a lot of money on the prospect that I'm about to die. It's probably someone who knows of an active plot in motion to try to kill me! The sooner I can find out about that, the better. I would much rather give them an incentive to make that known somewhat earlier than wait.
I feel like there must be some big piece of this puzzle that I'm missing that makes it so these cannot operate the way I imagine them, but I haven't heard anyone explaining what it is. Someone fill me in on what I'm missing here?
If the prediction market is for a non-trivial amount, it's likely someone is going to kill you in exchange for the money the prediction market offered them. The prediction market isn't acting as a prophet here, it's acting as a plausibly deniable murder for hire service and you are its victim.
The people "betting against" you dying just paid to have you killed.
Yes, OOP might have chosen a suboptimal example here. But for general newsworthy events, people aren’t going to be in positions to manually make them happen. And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet.
The prediction markets aren't yet at sufficient scale to purchase a war, you mean. People start wars for money all the time though. If they become of sufficient scale, people will purchase wars on them.
There's already lots of examples where they are of sufficient scale, like paying the press secretary to shut up after 64 minutes. Or paying someone to falsify ISWs map of the front line in Ukraine.
> And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet.
Are you fucking kidding? Based just on current events, that is absolutely not a statement you can make without at least trying to prove it.
If you do try to prove that you will fail as the idea that people would start wars for profit is as old as wars.
Just evaluate the sentence you've just created. How many people exist who have the capability to start wars or influence the start of wars? It's a lot. What else do you know about these people and their motivations?
The missing piece is the distinction between a market that observes reality and a market that instigates it.
The criticism is about the systemic risk of converting prediction markets into "Assassination Markets"—mechanisms where the payout is not a reward for foresight, but a bounty for action.
In the case of Maduro, the operation cost around $300 million so a $400,000 payout isn’t providing a financial incentive.
But in the case of assassination, a $400,000 payout is sufficient motivation.
Or if you're the military commander with the option to disobey the illegal order (to go to war without congressional authorization) or take the bribe and execute the order. "Unmarked cash" (which this is) has pretty different purposes from official funds.
I think there's a pretty good chance the person who took that money was opportunistic, this time, but $400k isn't a trivial sum of money, it's not impossible it was the difference between this happening and not.
> I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it. I thought the whole point was that yes, people with inside knowledge will bet large sums of money on things they expect to happen, and that's what makes the prediction useful. The market is meant to incentivize people who know things to act on them in a way that makes them known.
Except the paragraph you quoted nullify this benefit
> The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro
So we learnt nothing. For the entire duration the stock is online, its pretty much 50/50 then suddenly 1 day before, the ticker spikes to yes.
> I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it.
Indeed. Insider trading is a feature of prediction markets, not a bug. There are two kinds of people who participate in prediction markets:
1. People who have insider information, or at least more sophisticated predictive capability than your average person.
2. Gamblers.
In effect, prediction markets are a way to move wealth from the second group to the first. If you understand that and still want to participate, cool. It's your money, and you're allowed to gamble it away if you find that entertaining.
At any rate, given the relatively small-potatoes level of bets going on at Polymarket and Kalshi, the article author's breathless anxiety about this is a bit overblown.
> I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here
> If I knew someone wanted me dead, of course I would want a prediction market on it, and if the odds suddenly shifted dramatically in favor of my death
No, you definitely would not want that. You don't want to live in the world like this. That's the point.
It's fucking horrible and dystopian, people betting on extra-legal invasions of countries, murders, things that could hurt or harm people where they have incentives to do something else that you've just distorted.
Gambling has been illegal, immoral, and proscribed by religions for literally thousands of years, in all sorts of different forms and iterations, for a reason. Because it's incredibly toxic to society.
You can make some arguments that pure games of chance, like casino games, and even maybe sports betting (since sports is a spectacle) aren't that bad. Based on what we've seen recently, I tend to disagree, but at least it's an argument.
But now we're talking about betting on all sorts of political issues, things that are illegal, things where people are acting in an official capacity and shouldn't be given incentives to subvert that. And all these other examples are just bad. There's not really any upside to this at all. It's just bad for society and it shouldn't happen. It's horrible.
If you feel like you're missing a big piece of the puzzle you should take a couple of steps back and think about the consequences of a world where this is common.
Prediction markets are not considered gambling for the same reason that stock markets aren't. There's no fixed odds or random chance. A skilled analyst can make consistent returns.
Unlike stock markets, prediction markets also provide valuable data on important world events, such as elections. It's wisdom of the crowd with financial incentive.
I don’t really understand the argument for prediction markets if you don’t have inside information. The reason they beat other forms of news is because insiders are incentivised to bet, that makes some sense. But surely an investor without insider knowledge will always make less money on a market where they’re trading against insiders than one where they’re not.
You forget that people are not necessarily doing this for rational reasons.
Some people do it for for entertainment, some people are gambling addicts, some people think they have a strong grasp or inside knowledge when they don't.
It is, at root, a casino. Apply your lens to any casino game, and it shouldn't exist (some very narrow exceptions apply in the casino).
The argument is not that you should bet on prediction markets, the argument is that you should use the odds from the market to make decisions about the future.
But they don’t work without someone making the argument that some non-insiders should bet on them right? Because the insiders aren’t going to bother moving the market for us if there’s nobody to take money off.
Part of me wishes there were prediction markets for flight delays. The ETAs are wildly inaccurate, like last time the counter staff suggested I not reschedule cause our plane was arriving in 15min, when I could see on a slightly hard to find site that the plane was still grounded 500mi away.
Part of me is careful what I wish for, starting with passengers bothering staff even more.
But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
Only in a truth-agnostic sense. Good gamblers in player-banked games (poker; rock, scissors, paper) vs house-banked games (slots) are good at figuring out what the other guy is representing. The actual truth is much less significant.
I suspect that in practice, because a lot of online gamblers spend a lot of time specifically on X, they’re more susceptible than average to fake news.
> But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
Long time ago I was working for a betting company and we had a product where virtual (horses, dogs, bikes, cars) were racing in a virtual environment. This was displayed on a TV in physical branches and on the website, along with completely transparent information that it is all random, source of randomness was even some government audited hardware. The customers could place bets on these virtual racers, identified by numbers. Essentially if there were 8 'dogs' in a race, there was a 1/8 chance your pick would win. And then a new set of random numbers would be generated and based on that a new 'race' video would play. The 'races' would go on every day, 4 in hour or something like that.
And the customers (in the live chat or sitting in the physical locations) were often debating the form of the individual 'dogs', how they would perform in the next race and so on. Yes, really.
Right now Polymarket is subject to a federal agreement that they don't let US people participate. Apparently this is just a checkbox for the user to attest to. They don't even do IP geolocation, never mind payment checks.
So it's currently illegal for them to run this in the US. But is it illegal for users to participate?
Despite looking like a gambling website, the underlying system is a cryptocurrency exchange. With a separate cryptocurrency used as an oracle to decide (yes/no/later) if the yes or no side won. The site itself if pretty hands off with the actual financials. (though, they once did refund people when the oracle system resolved incorrectly)
I don't think this convoluted setup is enough to avoid US gambling laws, but it is important to keep in mind how it actually works.
It's okay, when the next administration enforces the laws we'll see all the VC ghouls attack and decry the government for having the audacity to protect citizens from abuse.
"Why prediction markets aren't popular" [0] gives some compelling arguments (to me) about why prediction markets haven't caught on and probably never will.
As I understand it, the main argument is that for prediction markets that aim to incentivize the thing they're predicting, better to invest in the thing directly. Otherwise, "prediction markets" are successful precisely when they can't influence the outcome, like sports betting.
I remember finding the election betting interesting last presidential election, but I also remember that it was spiked when Musk invested to change the odds.
Musk, being the world's richest person, is something of an outlier. He can afford to give free money to the market for longer than anyone else, and the size of the market might not be big enough to handle the imbalance.
There's a level of irrational spending which only institutional investors can counterbalance, and they might not have the risk appetite to get into a single market on a relatively less regulated platform that could rug pull them.
My understanding is that unchecked wealth only remains that way until its owner acts irrationally on a stock exchange, at which point it is quite rapidly checked and becomes someone else's unchecked wealth.
Which is to say that Elon Musk can inflate any market he wants, but only by losing sums of money that will become increasingly significant as more and more people find out about the free cash giveaway.
There’s no functional difference in how markets work when 99% of wealth is owned by a handful of kings vs 99% of wealth being owned by a handful of oligarchs.
I don't really think so. You just swapped the term king to Oligarchs. In fact the Oligarchs are even worse because people think that they have freedom when they might not in fact have such freedom in the first place.
NFTs have zero value but people seem to derive non-monetary value from them. Naked option trading is a form of gambling (as well as risk management) and, as a result, it is regulated.
Polymarket is a "financial investment" for regulatory purposes but is gambling, there is no legitimate risk management reason. As a result, there is massive scope for harm because it is gambling without any of the gambling regulations that exist in the US.
People on this site appear to be unaware that gambling is regulated where legal. I will give you an example: Polymarket do not comply with state regulator's exclusion/no market lists. This is immoral. Gambling companies should not take bets from users who have gambling problems, they should not market to them.
Offshore unregulated books will often market themselves to addicts saying that they do not comply with regulator's exclusion lists...this is an onshore book operating in Lexington Avenue New York, not out of a shed with a pig sty in Curaco. It is unbelievable at many levels.
The article’s point was not that Polymarket is the problem-the point is validating and advertising Polymarket on national news outlets will have ugly consequences.
Yeah, once it's on television, it is similar to polling, which can influence elections because people like to vote for the winner. However, in this case it's even worse, because someone with deep pockets can influence the predictions.
But polling is still scientific and harder to manipulate than the betting markets. All of this is covered in th article. You should read it-it is a good article.
Sorry, that was what I meant to imply with the second half of my comment. Still, in my country there have been debates about whether publishing polls shouldn't be forbidden n weeks or days before the election (currently publishing polls and campaigning is only forbidden on election day).
The solution is baked into the problem. If prediction markets become generally embraced by the public (mentioning them on CNN is part of that evolution) then they will be much harder to manipulate. Size matters.
You are assuming everyone stay rational & this becomes a pre-election itself (like poll) but it can change and multiple reasons
You got to give even a 1000$ or something in this bet, you are gonna be so vocal about support, manipulation of data to convince unconvinced voters to join you or other details
The unconvinced voters are simply gonna bet on the voting side after sometime. For context, a third of the population in US iirc doesn't vote so what's gonna happen is that a difference of few %'s Lead could turn into something massive
And that few % can easily be rigged by an irrational actor. You are thinking 1 person = 1 vote (yes/no) but I may be wrong but how these work is in the aggregate and so a rich person can cause much more disruption within the voting system "legally" as well.
The point here is the legal part where what can end/what would end up happening is that elites around the world with irrational money can basically get political bases & favours established around the world for their purposes
Suppose an election is at 49 A / 51 B but now a rich guy contacted A and said to invest x$ to now make the odds 51 A / 49 B and then this news gets to twitter or any platform and now people get false news and some undecided voters might go bet on 51 itself too so now it might be 53/47 and in real voting election 51 A/49B
Some Elections are really close so I am pretty sure something like this is bound to happen sooner than later
Polymarket here is one example among the companies causing the problem. Legislation that addresses the problem should affect all the listed companies and more, not just Polymarket.
Personally I find it sickening to see ads that say you can get rich betting on the weather. I haven't seen ads for polymarket but Kalshi's ads are absolutely predatory.
Naked option trading is certainly the worst of the three from a financial risk perspective for the beginner.
Although polymarket would do the best at "attraction" towards the average uninformed consumer because the bets and how to place them are far more understandable than the various option trading strategies.
It's a website where people can make bets on how certain geopolitical and public events shake out.
I used to think it's just yet another way to people with more money than sense to get their kicks.
But then I saw the true reason why the platform is terrifying - it gives people who have nontrivial amounts riding on the line a very powerful incentive to influence said events.
I have seen expertly crafted and highly convincing narratives - that I know to be false from firsthand experience - spring up inside (and presumably outside) the platform spring up on an issue. There was the thing where the ISW (a reputable military think tank) reported an Ukrainian city was captured (when in fact it wasn't) in order to win a bet.
Imagine if next time someone leaks some military intel in order to hedge a bet. Money, especially lots of it, is a very powerful motivator.
There's also no way to check and control who has insider info or has influence on the outcome (as betting against them is essentially suicide)
It gives people in power, wether it be the government or even an NBA ref, a vehicle to profit off of conflicts of interest / fixing games / etc...
Ive seen people point out White House press conferences do weird shit, like cut the conference 10 seconds before some polymarket prop bet of "how long will this press conference be".
Much more heinously, a few months ago right before one of Trumps asinine tariff announcements, someone took out a $300M BTC short position that was almost certainly from a WH insider.
I honestly don't care if someone loses all their money gambling, but the problem I have is how so many institutions are able to be undermined at a fundamental level do the existence of polymarket.
I think you have completey missed my point. The stock market only allows you to trade securities, and (in theory) there is a lot of regulation and enforcement on who buys / sells stocks. Additionally, no one has the power to magically set a stock price to be a certain price on a certain date.
Polymarket all of a sudden makes it much easier to make money betting on an outcome people control. Looking at polymarket, I see bets paying 100-1 based on the number of tweets Elon makes on a given day. I see another at 100-1 on wether the US airstrikes Iran today with $66m riding on it. All of a sudden theres an incentive of a life changing amount of money for goons in the whitehouse to strike Iran for shits and giggles.
Did you know that in 2007 some NBA Refs were caught rigging games for just $2000 a game? Now Refs don't even need to be payed off when you can make a position anonymously with bitcoin.
>Additionally, no one has the power to magically set a stock price to be a certain price on a certain date.
but many have the knowledge of which company or industry is about to experience legislation, which they can pass to any of their associates worldwide, who can then buy or short the affected entities and share the profit with the insider. Polymarket is just the idiocracy version of that.
I completely agree insider trading is an issue, especially with the legality of sitting congressmen being able to day trade. But with the exception of elected officials voting for bad bills / policies, the "victim" is whomever loses money on those trade. Its reactive to world events, meaning the world events aren't being changed by the insider trader.
Polymarket is worse as it gives a mechanism for proactively changing the outcome of events to a much more extreme degree, simply because someone can make money on it.
A benign version of this would be NFL employees betting $1million on the color of gatorade in the Superbowl.
An insane version of this would be Trump issuing a single airstrike on Iran after having a friend or family member place a $10M bet on polymarket that pays out $1B. It completely erodes the obligation our government officials have to not act in their self interests.
Example: I had a flutter on the US Election. The odds were well in favour of Trump winning and I figured that was never going to happen, so I thought I was putting 'smart money' on Kamala.
I stand by it being 'smart' money ;)
I underestimated 'dumb' (which, I guess, isn't 'smart').
The whole nation is eaten up by gambling and other vices at this time. It's not the first time such a thing has happened in a nation's history. Generally it occurs just after widespread monetary debasement and just before major, world shaking disasters. (You Are Here.)
Reference: Andrew Dickson White (first president of Cornell) "Fiat Money Inflation In France", published 1896:
"The government now began, and continued by spasms to grind out still more paper; commerce was at first stimulated by the difference in exchange; but this cause soon ceased to operate, and commerce, having been stimulated unhealthfully, wasted away.
Manufactures at first received a great impulse; but, ere long, this overproduction and overstimulus proved as fatal to them as to commerce. From time to time there was a revival of hope caused by an apparent revival of business; but this revival of business was at last seen to be caused more and more by the desire of far-seeing and cunning men of affairs to exchange paper money for objects of permanent value. As to the people at large, the classes living on fixed incomes and small salaries felt the pressure first, as soon as the purchasing power of their fixed incomes was reduced. Soon the great class living on wages felt it even more sadly.
Prices of the necessities of life increased: merchants were obliged to increase them, not only to cover depreciation of their merchandise, but also to cover their risk of loss from fluctuation; and, while the prices of products thus rose, wages, which had at first gone up under the general stimulus, lagged behind. Under the universal doubt and discouragement, commerce and manufactures were checked or destroyed. As a consequence the demand for labor was diminished; laboring men were thrown out of employment, and, under the operation of the simplest law of supply and demand, the price of labor--the daily wages of the laboring class--went down until, at a time when prices of food, clothing and various articles of consumption were enormous, wages were nearly as low as at the time preceding the first issue of irredeemable currency."
He's writing about Revolutionary France's debasement, but Mackay's Extraordinary Delusions documents France's debasement under John Law about 70 years earlier, which shows how easily such mistakes are repeated.
"The mercantile classes at first thought themselves exempt from the general misfortune. They were delighted at the apparent advance in the value of the goods upon their shelves. But they soon found that, as they increased prices to cover the inflation of currency and the risk from fluctuation and uncertainty, purchases became less in amount and payments less sure; a feeling of insecurity spread throughout the country; enterprise was deadened and stagnation followed.
New issues of paper were then clamored for as more drams are demanded by a drunkard. New issues only increased the evil; capitalists were all the more reluctant to embark their money on such a sea of doubt. Workmen of all sorts were more and more thrown out of employment. Issue after issue of currency came; but no relief resulted save a momentary stimulus, which aggravated the disease. The most ingenious evasions of natural laws in finance which the most subtle theorists could contrive were tried--all in vain; the most brilliant substitutes for those laws were tried; "self-regulating" schemes, "interconverting" schemes--all equally vain. All thoughtful men had lost confidence. All men were waiting; stagnation became worse and worse. At last came the collapse and then a return, by a fearful shock, to a state of things which presented something like certainty of remuneration to capital and labor. Then, and not till then, came the beginning of a new era of prosperity.
Just as dependent on the law of cause and effect was the moral development. Out of the inflation of prices grew a speculating class; and, in the complete uncertainty as to the future, all business became a game of chance, and all business men, gamblers. In city centers came a quick growth of stock-jobbers and speculators; and these set a debasing fashion in business which spread to the remotest parts of the country. Instead of satisfaction with legitimate profits, came a passion for inordinate gains. Then, too, as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. So came upon the nation the obliteration of thrift."
Please don't make posts consisting of quotes and nothing else. HN is a supposed to be a site for curious conversation. It's not hard to see how posts like this interrupt that and bog it down - imagine someone at a dinner party* reading entire paragraphs like this.
(* I don't know why I said "dinner party", since I don't go to those, the conversation usually isn't good, and they aren't my idea of fun, but oh well, it makes the point)
It definitely bogs things down. I would have preferred even an AI summary of the text, granted that it was accompanied by additional commentary to tie that to the subject at hand, rather than dumping in text with the assumption that the reader will understand the implicit connection.
"In this mania for yielding to present enjoyment rather than providing for future comfort were the seeds of new growths of wretchedness: luxury, senseless and extravagant, set in: this, too, spread as a fashion. To feed it, there came cheatery in the nation at large and corruption among officials and persons holding trusts. While men set such fashions in private and official business, women set fashions of extravagance in dress and living that added to the incentives to corruption. Faith in moral considerations, or even in good impulses, yielded to general distrust. National honor was thought a fiction cherished only by hypocrites. Patriotism was eaten out by cynicism.
Thus was the history of France logically developed in obedience to natural laws; such has, to a greater or less degree, always been the result of irredeemable paper, created according to the whim or interest of legislative assemblies rather than based upon standards of value permanent in their nature and agreed upon throughout the entire world. Such, we may fairly expect, will always be the result of them until the ñat of the Almighty shall evolve laws in the universe radically different from those which at present obtain.
And, finally, as to the general development of the theory and practice which all this history records: my subject has been Fiat Money in France; How it came; What it brought; and How it ended.
It came by seeking a remedy for a comparatively small evil in an evil infinitely more dangerous. To cure a disease temporary in its character, a corrosive poison was administered, which ate out the vitals of French prosperity.
It progressed according to a law in social physics which we may call the "law of accelerating issue and depreciation." It was comparatively easy to refrain from the first issue; it was exceedingly difficult to refrain from the second; to refrain from the third and those following was practically impossible.
It brought, as we have seen, commerce and manufactures, the mercantile interest, the agricultural interest, to ruin. It brought on these the same destruction which would come to a Hollander opening the dykes of the sea to irrigate his garden in a dry summer. It ended in the complete financial, moral and political prostration of France--a prostration from which only a Napoleon could raise it."
So that lazy people who form their worldview via a Quick Google Search, Wikipedia articles, and/or "news media" can actually have a chance to learn something real about the time they are living in.
It's like a dozen paragraphs, forming one complete argument. Is this too much material to take in all at once, in this brave new TLDR tomorrow?
I don't come here to read lengthy quotes from random authors. I come here for discussion and interesting viewpoints from our community. Posting a lengthy quote is low-effort; more valuable would be to write up your take on it in your own words, and, if you want, link to the original source material that you would have otherwise quoted.
> It's like a dozen paragraphs, forming one complete argument. Is this too much material to take in all at once, in this brave new TLDR tomorrow?
The issue is not that you cited a dozen-paragraph argument, it's that you inlined all the text directly into a series of comments instead of a link to the text on a separate page. It visually overwhelms the discussion thread and is disruptive to the broader discussion, which is not strictly against guidelines but generally seen as non-normative behavior.
There's two forms of manipulation mentioned. One is changing the market to influence public perception, that does become harder as the market grows in size.
The other is accepting the bribe, sorry, taking the other side of the bet, and making something happen. That only becomes worse with scale. When you're in the position to accept a million dollar payout to cause the press conference to only last 64 minutes, or to invade a foreign country, suddenly you have a million new reasons to do so.
On any prediction market where a reasonably small group of humans decide the outcome, and there's enough money to matter, "betting no" is better understood as offering a fee to make it happen, conditioned on damages should someone accept your offer and fail to do so. "Betting yes" is better understood as agreeing to facilitate the outcome - or assisting in the price discovery mechanism that says facilitators are over charging.
That only really holds if reporting on the manipulation bets is not turned into effective propaganda for skewing events towards the manipulation outcome.
So the main argument of the article holds IMO.
Edited to add: I'd like to rephrase that a bit actually. It doesn't even have to help bring about the particular outcome being bet on. It's enough that it can be used to shift public opinion in some way that's worth the cost to the manipulator.
Sure, but events where that kind of "skew" is effective are going to be quite rare. And even then, the incentive is just for everyone to try and "skew" the event as early as possible, where factors other than monetary cost or reward then become dominant. No different from what usually happens with no prediction market at all.
> It's enough that it can be used to shift public opinion in some way that's worth the cost to the manipulator.
This has been tried in the real world and is just not very effective. It's just too hard to move the price in ways that will shift public opinion when literally anyone else has a huge incentive to bet against you.
No, completely wrong. Deep markets are not more accurate.
People who are unfamiliar with how regulated gamblings works assume that the "market" is just lots of informed people rationally trading with each other. This is not how it works. Bookmakers post lines to a small group of syndicates up to a limit, they will often do this non-publicly, and this is how prices are set. They are not set by the "wisdom of crowds", they are set by people who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in predicting the outcome because bookmakers have an economic need for accurate lines.
When lines open to the public, there is often no significant movement after opening prices set by syndicates. That is because the public has no idea what the actual price should be, they are just uninformed noise traders clicking buttons randomly...that is the product too, the purpose of the product is entertainment not economic efficiency.
It is true that some lines are set incorrectly but the public is not able to benefit from this, because they do not have the information. I would guess that 95% of money made from gambling has been made by under 50 people. And, perhaps counter-intuitively, most of the time these people trading does not have an impact on price because they deliberately trade in a way that does not impact price. Again, the purpose is the same: they trade to make money, not produce economic efficiency.
The people who think prediction markets are useful in any way are people who never traded any markets and couldn't predict if the sun is going to come up tomorrow. If gamblers are noise traders, these people are noise speakers. These markets are completely pointless, gambling is economically pointless outside of the pleasure that people get from entertainment.
Noise traders ultimately create an even greater incentive for accurate prediction. The fact that the odds are set at the start and never change just proves that there's very little change in relevant information about upcoming sport games, races etc. where regulated bets happen. That's totally normal. Bets about real-world events are a rather different matter though.
No, they don't. If you have a line that is beatable, that line has been open for a long time, and you have informed people profiting from that line, it will usually not move. People who have information will disguise their flow, they won't bet with places that will move the line against them when they bet (if you bet this with Pinnacle, for example, they will work out you are beating their line immediately, they have quants who can work out how you are beating their line, and you have permanently destroyed your edge) so you put money down at soft book somehow and they will likely not move line against you...meaning the line doesn't move.
Again, it is fairly common assumption that people make that it must be noise traders who are incentivizing syndicates. This is the case at open but not after, and there is a significant distinction between noise traders and noise traders through retail books. Retail books do not set the lines, they do not post lines early to syndicates, their product is completely different. There is literally no incentive for accurate prediction because the economic gain from noise trading does not accrue to anyone who has information. 95% accrues to firms with the greatest marketing advantage, again...this is entertainment, it is not about accurate prediction, you are misunderstanding at a very fundamental level what is going on here. It is like going to see the Minecraft Movie and thinking this is artistic expression on the level of Tokyo Story.
This would all be different if there were real markets underpinned by economic demand for this risk but there isn't. This is why Betfair failed. This is why these "prices" you see aren't actually real prices.
Right now, they're all thin traded at their open. As soon as they are created is when you see the volatility that makes them enticing. Once you get volume, there doesn't seem to be as much value to be had.
Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason.
I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.
> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason.
Moneyed interests saw a business opportunity, simple as that. Economic investment is becoming highly concentrated towards high-growth, high-risk opportunities and gambling has long thrived in the black market while staying current with technology.
> except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.
And this will only become more true as the economy continues to worsen. Economic downturns and market collapses favor the elite.
The powers that be have always saught wealth. At some point they gained enough power to start usurping the law that was supposed to keep them in check.
> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason.
The things I've seen have been either "it's not right to tell me not to" or "non-participants can get useful information by observing the odds". What I haven't seen is claims that it won't be net-harmful to participants.
This seems like the contrarian argument to libertarianism. A libertarian might claim it is orthogonal to it in theory, but in practice it is very much relevant to a “break all the walls down” ideology.
> I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.
Hit the nail on the head and these are my thoughts exactly. I don't really want to be the guy that thinks his time is extra-ordinary (cue fake quote of Socrates saying "kids these days have no manners"), but... maybe it is?
For me it's like people don't even feel the need to pretend anymore. Selfish geopolitical calculations and greed have dictated all actors' actions in the 20th, that isn't new, but at least then there was a need to appear to abide by laws or to uphold human rights, even to strive for the eradication of war (and often it wasn't a disguise; people actually cared about those things).
States used to care or at least appear to care about progress, betterment, social improvement, moral improvement. Today? All any government speaks of is raw GDP growth %. And so gambling is pushed on TVs, streets, subways, kids' entertainment... The idea that a government of a nation would strive for the moral well-being of its citizens (by heavily curtailing gambling for example) seems positively quaint in 2026.
Eh, I don’t think not wanting gambling and amoral behavior to consume society makes me a conservative in any real sense of the word. More just common sense pragmatism, is how I’d put it.
No, it’s an argument against removing rules / making changes without deeply understanding why those rules exist in the first place, and what might happen when they are removed.
It’s perfectly fine to be for progressive social changes, as long as those criteria are met.
I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.
"It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive"
That's likely how most of the middle see themselves (if not in those words) - open to new changes but only if they're fully understood and not drastic.
No, sometimes social change is putting up a fence. And if social change is sometimes putting up fences, that would mean that not all fences are supposed to be torn down.
Sure, but Chesterton's Fence is a pretty foundational argument among many conservatives.
Conservatives think societies are hard to understand, which makes them hard to engineer, and replacing institutions that work with new inventions needs to be done carefully and slowly.
I think most serious left-wing people also hold a strong aversion to gambling on the grounds that it's financially exploitative and can be viewed as a regressive tax on the poor/uneducated.
Prediction markets have an alluring quality that they become a pulse-check on what humanity believes is going to happen, putting your money where your mouth is, and when they work like this they work pretty well and are an interesting instrument. Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, has even gone so far as to say that Insider Trading is a necessary source of data for prediction markets, if the goal of prediction markets is to be an accurate prediction of the future [1]. However, it seems increasingly clear that even this function of prediction markets doesn't behave how the silicon valley elite seem to think it does. In multiple markets throughout 2025, we saw insiders "snipe" correct predictions at the last minute, while odds were still against the correct outcome, moments before some finalizing event or news became public.
In theory, insiders give correct signal. But in practice, their volume is often too low to meaningfully move the market in the correct direction, and the timing of their order flow can be too late for that signal to actually be useful as a tool for predicting the future.
Its also critical to note that insider trading laws don't just exist to protect investors. They exist to protect the organizations the insiders belong to. The order flow on both prediction markets and the stock market is public information. Its one thing to short the company you work at because you know they're going to announce bad earnings. Its another thing entirely to take out a million-dollar position on "US Strikes Venezuela before Jan 3: Yes" on January 2nd. Sophisticated geopolitical opponents are monitoring these order flow feeds, and it begins to become a genuine matter of national security.
Overall, I am fine with prediction markets. I think they're an improvement over sports betting in the sense that they better-align incentives between the participants and the market-maker. In typical sports betting, the casinos running them set the odds, and participants take out positions against the casino; which means the casinos are incentivized against allowing anyone to actually make money on their platforms. This has surfaced many times in "professional sports betters" getting blacklisted. In comparison, PMs are a contract between participants, and the market-maker only takes a fee on each transaction (Robinhood's is 2.5%; quite high), which means the market-maker is only incentivized to increase PM order book volume and provide interesting markets. There's more opportunity for actual skill and dedication to shine through.
> A billionaire congressional candidate can’t just send a check to Quinnipiac University and suddenly find himself as the polling front-runner, but he can place enormous Polymarket bets on himself that move the odds in his favor.
Maybe not with a specific pollster depending on their scruples, but you can definitely pay to be part of the poll. And that’s the first step to getting any stats whatsoever.
Bookies determine the odds and typically refuse to take bets from skilled bettors.
A market is open to all, with the odds influenced by all participants. In established betting markets such as for stocks, pros dedicate their careers and their organizations to improving the public estimates emerging from the market (though not for the sake of that improvement).
General prediction markets might turn out bad, but the above isn't an argument why, it's namecalling.
>>At least in gambling they don't let the sports referees and players gamble.
Oh c'mon now. This is completely impossible to police. Players and referees are not under constant supervision. They have families, friends, partners. Some of them got caught but you can be certain most weren't because it's just very difficult to catch.
There are always multiple people who know about key players' injuries, illness, other factors. The game is negative sum and additionally insiders take a a chunk for themselves. It's worse then roulette which at least doesn't pretend to be fair.
It isn't impossible to police. Players and referees are under supervision...I am not sure why you think this isn't the case. Regulated gambling companies i.e. not Polymarket, maintain lists of people who are connected to sports inc. through family. And they maintain systems that monitor unusual betting activity that is shared across the industry, it is quite easy to detect this activity because most of the flow that bookmakers see is uninformed. So if you see a customer that doesn't bet regularly put down $10k, line moves in their favour...that is obviously extremely suspicious because that won't happen with 95% of the volume you take.
As an example, there was a football player in England who had a friend that bet on a transfer market (a market that is extremely prone to inside information). It was detected immediately (despite being a relatively small bet of $10k, I have heard anecdotally that insiders have been detected in this market down to $500 bets), the player was banned, fined $500k, etc.
Btw, the reason these systems exist is because there are certain sports that are too lucrative not to make a market in but the economics/nature of the game mean that matches are easily fixed: 99.99% of this activity is low-ranked professional tennis, and surveillance has been very effective (all of this is funded, not by professional tennis, but by gambling companies). Generally, this isn't as prevalent with US sports because none of those preconditions exist for the major sports.
Why is polymarket worse than cell phone games? At least polymarket essentially self identifies as gambling and isn't specifically marketed to children.
Cell phone games are knowingly losing money for fun. Polymarket is a sign of a failing, rapidly deregulatory economy.
And that's before we get into discussing the social damage to country that already sees more school shootings than weeks in a year (actually, 4x more), with rising political and civil tensions including assassinated politicians, adding potential "lose your house" to random events. As if it'll help calm things down and let us all keep a level head.
Or the implications of news companies reporting on these odds as if they reflect actual statistical likelihood, and how that gives the ultra wealthy yet another lever to control the view of reality the common people have.
Isn't Polymarket very low stakes?
For example "Will Trump acquire Greenland before 2027" market (the main one for this issue) has only 14m USD volume.
This is like 2 orders of magnitude less money than is bet on El Classico 2 times a year.
There are risks connected when prediction markets run wild but Polymarket ain't it.
There is also utility. It has high predictive value (it beats polls for elections from a little sample I've looked at) and allows you to make better decisions.
It beats polls for elections ONLY until someone notices it is being used as the basis of news stories and figures out it will be four orders of magnitude cheaper to manipulate that small market and make the news idiots broadcast that opinions have changed than to actually deploy all the adverts needed to change the opinions.
The very low stakes you point out make this even easier to put a thumb on the scales.
Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
The point of the article is that as soon as the "news" started reporting on prediction markets or corporatized gambling as if it was a measure of sentiment, it ceased to become a good measurement. That point has long passed.
News already broadcast tons of nonsense. Political commentary is just brain rot. Economic commentary might be just as well generated by one of those Markov chain string generators - it would make as much sense.
>>out it will be four orders of magnitude cheaper to manipulate that small market and make the news idiots broadcast that opinions have changed than to actually deploy all the adverts needed to change the opinions.
It will then become more expensive.
Out of all the manipulation news and journalists do every day I am not sure why "people bet money at 1 to 4 odds that Trump takes Greenland before 2027" is particularly problematic. It's true people bet money on it at those odds. How is that more problematic that news running pro or anti Trump segments or broadcasting some random crystal ball readings to justify stock price fluctuations of the day?
You can see how much money is bet on the market as well. It's not like you can spend 5 figures and suddenly shape the narrative.
There is a certain kind of person who thinks that all the news they disagree with is being faked by people who will spend multiple millions on Polymarket just to get a news story on CNN.
This person does not realise that most people do not pay attention to the news, that people in power are not glued to the news waiting for journalists to tell them what to say, or that the news is generally not very important...except to people like them who play out these fantasies about wealthy people mind-controlling them through CNN.
If insiders trade, the market becomes more accurate, which is good for society. Like WikiLeaks. Thus the MSN panic, the legacy establishment wants Polymarket to follow Assange's path.
That sounds a lot like "the magical hand of the markets" and "trickle down economics". A hope surrounded by a semblance of logic but not a lot thought put on the important details of how things actually work.
With this I mean: I can think of several ways in which this would go in the other direction (bad for society). And I am not an economics expert.
The problem discussed in the article was NOT insiders trading on secret information — it is the nearly opposite problem of manipulators trading and skewing the odds.
Insider trading seeks to trade with secret information and minimally obvious trades to avoid moving the markets until their position is locked in, in order to profit when the previously secret information becomes public and the market finally moves to a different price level.
Manipulators seek to move the market to create a false narrative that market-moving info exists when actual market-moving does NOT exist; the expectation is that people will see the price change and ASSUME there is information behind it, when there is actually just a manipulator willing to lose money to create that impression.
In a small market, such manipulation can be more cost-effective (make more of an impression for the same cost) vs buying advertisements.
Yep, some WH member trading 400k$ an hour before an attack sure did wonders for "the good of society". So does media showing rates on gambling websites as if they were an oracle and not something that can be gamed for cheaper than a TV ad.
The internet is too connected and communication too instantaneous for Polymarket to be anything but a system to be gamed by those with money and influence.
Bet appears on Polymarket? You have the ability to direct people and resources to enact the under? Congrats you're rich!
Occasionally they make historically bad bets and blow up their fortunes, and it gets eaten up it all the smaller sharks circling behind them. It used to be most billionaires only lasted (as billionaires) for 3-7 years before collapsing.
The current stock market insane binge has changed that a bit.
Yeah, they historically don't like to keep increasing their wealth, Elon musk going from 350bn to nearly 800bn in like 2 years is definitely not an example of that.
The writer obviously hasn’t done any deep study of prediction markets and why they often provide greater insight than other polling techniques. Are they perfect? No. They predicted Hillary would win in 2016.
You obviously missed the point of the article. The point is that validating and advertising Polymarket on national news outlets will have ugly consequences.
Text-only, no Javascript:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1Upfdb
> The irony of prediction markets is that they are supposed to be a more trustworthy way of gleaning the future than internet clickbait and half-baked punditry, but they risk shredding whatever shared trust we still have left. The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro may have been just a stroke of phenomenal luck that netted a roughly $400,000 payout. Or maybe someone with inside information was looking for easy money.
I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it. I thought the whole point was that yes, people with inside knowledge will bet large sums of money on things they expect to happen, and that's what makes the prediction useful. The market is meant to incentivize people who know things to act on them in a way that makes them known.
If I knew someone wanted me dead, of course I would want a prediction market on it, and if the odds suddenly shifted dramatically in favor of my death, I would use that as a trigger for whatever defense strategies I had in place. Someone has really good reason to bet a lot of money on the prospect that I'm about to die. It's probably someone who knows of an active plot in motion to try to kill me! The sooner I can find out about that, the better. I would much rather give them an incentive to make that known somewhat earlier than wait.
I feel like there must be some big piece of this puzzle that I'm missing that makes it so these cannot operate the way I imagine them, but I haven't heard anyone explaining what it is. Someone fill me in on what I'm missing here?
If the prediction market is for a non-trivial amount, it's likely someone is going to kill you in exchange for the money the prediction market offered them. The prediction market isn't acting as a prophet here, it's acting as a plausibly deniable murder for hire service and you are its victim.
The people "betting against" you dying just paid to have you killed.
Yes, OOP might have chosen a suboptimal example here. But for general newsworthy events, people aren’t going to be in positions to manually make them happen. And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet.
The prediction markets aren't yet at sufficient scale to purchase a war, you mean. People start wars for money all the time though. If they become of sufficient scale, people will purchase wars on them.
There's already lots of examples where they are of sufficient scale, like paying the press secretary to shut up after 64 minutes. Or paying someone to falsify ISWs map of the front line in Ukraine.
> And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet.
Are you fucking kidding? Based just on current events, that is absolutely not a statement you can make without at least trying to prove it.
If you do try to prove that you will fail as the idea that people would start wars for profit is as old as wars.
Just evaluate the sentence you've just created. How many people exist who have the capability to start wars or influence the start of wars? It's a lot. What else do you know about these people and their motivations?
The missing piece is the distinction between a market that observes reality and a market that instigates it.
The criticism is about the systemic risk of converting prediction markets into "Assassination Markets"—mechanisms where the payout is not a reward for foresight, but a bounty for action.
In the case of Maduro, the operation cost around $300 million so a $400,000 payout isn’t providing a financial incentive.
But in the case of assassination, a $400,000 payout is sufficient motivation.
> In the case of Maduro, the operation cost around $300 million so a $400,000 payout isn’t providing a financial incentive.
It is if you are spending someone else’s $300 million, and getting the $400,000 yourself.
Or if you're the military commander with the option to disobey the illegal order (to go to war without congressional authorization) or take the bribe and execute the order. "Unmarked cash" (which this is) has pretty different purposes from official funds.
I think there's a pretty good chance the person who took that money was opportunistic, this time, but $400k isn't a trivial sum of money, it's not impossible it was the difference between this happening and not.
> I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it. I thought the whole point was that yes, people with inside knowledge will bet large sums of money on things they expect to happen, and that's what makes the prediction useful. The market is meant to incentivize people who know things to act on them in a way that makes them known.
Except the paragraph you quoted nullify this benefit
> The suspiciously well-timed bets that one Polymarket user placed right before the capture of Nicolás Maduro
So we learnt nothing. For the entire duration the stock is online, its pretty much 50/50 then suddenly 1 day before, the ticker spikes to yes.
> I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here, because the example seems to support the point that these are meant to be a way of learning the future, not oppose it.
Indeed. Insider trading is a feature of prediction markets, not a bug. There are two kinds of people who participate in prediction markets:
1. People who have insider information, or at least more sophisticated predictive capability than your average person.
2. Gamblers.
In effect, prediction markets are a way to move wealth from the second group to the first. If you understand that and still want to participate, cool. It's your money, and you're allowed to gamble it away if you find that entertaining.
At any rate, given the relatively small-potatoes level of bets going on at Polymarket and Kalshi, the article author's breathless anxiety about this is a bit overblown.
> I'm trying to understand what the criticism is here
> If I knew someone wanted me dead, of course I would want a prediction market on it, and if the odds suddenly shifted dramatically in favor of my death
No, you definitely would not want that. You don't want to live in the world like this. That's the point.
It's fucking horrible and dystopian, people betting on extra-legal invasions of countries, murders, things that could hurt or harm people where they have incentives to do something else that you've just distorted.
Gambling has been illegal, immoral, and proscribed by religions for literally thousands of years, in all sorts of different forms and iterations, for a reason. Because it's incredibly toxic to society.
You can make some arguments that pure games of chance, like casino games, and even maybe sports betting (since sports is a spectacle) aren't that bad. Based on what we've seen recently, I tend to disagree, but at least it's an argument.
But now we're talking about betting on all sorts of political issues, things that are illegal, things where people are acting in an official capacity and shouldn't be given incentives to subvert that. And all these other examples are just bad. There's not really any upside to this at all. It's just bad for society and it shouldn't happen. It's horrible.
If you feel like you're missing a big piece of the puzzle you should take a couple of steps back and think about the consequences of a world where this is common.
Prediction markets are not considered gambling for the same reason that stock markets aren't. There's no fixed odds or random chance. A skilled analyst can make consistent returns.
Unlike stock markets, prediction markets also provide valuable data on important world events, such as elections. It's wisdom of the crowd with financial incentive.
Not all of the events are “important world events”
It seems you don’t know very much about this subject
I don’t really understand the argument for prediction markets if you don’t have inside information. The reason they beat other forms of news is because insiders are incentivised to bet, that makes some sense. But surely an investor without insider knowledge will always make less money on a market where they’re trading against insiders than one where they’re not.
You forget that people are not necessarily doing this for rational reasons.
Some people do it for for entertainment, some people are gambling addicts, some people think they have a strong grasp or inside knowledge when they don't.
It is, at root, a casino. Apply your lens to any casino game, and it shouldn't exist (some very narrow exceptions apply in the casino).
The argument is not that you should bet on prediction markets, the argument is that you should use the odds from the market to make decisions about the future.
But they don’t work without someone making the argument that some non-insiders should bet on them right? Because the insiders aren’t going to bother moving the market for us if there’s nobody to take money off.
Part of me wishes there were prediction markets for flight delays. The ETAs are wildly inaccurate, like last time the counter staff suggested I not reschedule cause our plane was arriving in 15min, when I could see on a slightly hard to find site that the plane was still grounded 500mi away.
Part of me is careful what I wish for, starting with passengers bothering staff even more.
This is a problem, a net negative and a sign of a weakening society.
But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
It seems hard to be a climate change denier when you're about to gamble on it.
Or maybe people will find a way to gamble while still living in completely different reality bubbles. Probably.
If you thought your neighbor was politically extreme last election, just wait until next election when he also has $100,000 on the line...
But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
Only in a truth-agnostic sense. Good gamblers in player-banked games (poker; rock, scissors, paper) vs house-banked games (slots) are good at figuring out what the other guy is representing. The actual truth is much less significant.
I suspect that in practice, because a lot of online gamblers spend a lot of time specifically on X, they’re more susceptible than average to fake news.
> But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
Long time ago I was working for a betting company and we had a product where virtual (horses, dogs, bikes, cars) were racing in a virtual environment. This was displayed on a TV in physical branches and on the website, along with completely transparent information that it is all random, source of randomness was even some government audited hardware. The customers could place bets on these virtual racers, identified by numbers. Essentially if there were 8 'dogs' in a race, there was a 1/8 chance your pick would win. And then a new set of random numbers would be generated and based on that a new 'race' video would play. The 'races' would go on every day, 4 in hour or something like that.
And the customers (in the live chat or sitting in the physical locations) were often debating the form of the individual 'dogs', how they would perform in the next race and so on. Yes, really.
Am I overlooking something, or would that mean it’s super easy for a rational participant to make money?
Sometimes. Often the sure fire bets have lower returns than the expected annual stock market returns.
You have to watch out for resolutions are don’t depend on the truth or could be abused.
Examples of markets to avoid are those that a single individual can manipulate. They could take the most profitable side and corrupt the result.
Presumably it's a negative expected value game - the company running it has to make money after all... so likely not.
Prediction markets don’t need a bookie. Each bet has another real person taking the other side.
It’s more like the stock market brokerages. They just take a fee on each trade and don’t need to give you a spread over the stock price
This subthread is not about prediction markets
pigeon dancing (ala Skinner). Humans love to ascribe meaning to things, we have a real problem with randomness.
> But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
5 minutes browsing polymarket comments will dispel that notion really fast.
But at least you can make them poorer
Or just ignore all that garbage.
> If you thought your neighbor was politically extreme last election, just wait until next election when he also has $100,000 on the line...
I've seen the comment that prediction markets can be viewed as a tool for making conflicts more intractable.
> gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
Crypto bros. Remember when all of them were saying that NFTs were the future?
What is the legality for US residents?
Right now Polymarket is subject to a federal agreement that they don't let US people participate. Apparently this is just a checkbox for the user to attest to. They don't even do IP geolocation, never mind payment checks.
So it's currently illegal for them to run this in the US. But is it illegal for users to participate?
Despite looking like a gambling website, the underlying system is a cryptocurrency exchange. With a separate cryptocurrency used as an oracle to decide (yes/no/later) if the yes or no side won. The site itself if pretty hands off with the actual financials. (though, they once did refund people when the oracle system resolved incorrectly)
I don't think this convoluted setup is enough to avoid US gambling laws, but it is important to keep in mind how it actually works.
It's okay, when the next administration enforces the laws we'll see all the VC ghouls attack and decry the government for having the audacity to protect citizens from abuse.
Polymarket has been around for a while. I thought the agreement happened under the Biden admin, but I could be wrong.
> Right now Polymarket is subject to a federal agreement that they don't let US people participate.
This changed last month.
What changed?
They bought a CFTC regulated exchange
They do check geolocation on order submit. You can read the site from anywhere, though.
Ah, I did not get that far in the enrollment process. Thanks!
"Why prediction markets aren't popular" [0] gives some compelling arguments (to me) about why prediction markets haven't caught on and probably never will.
As I understand it, the main argument is that for prediction markets that aim to incentivize the thing they're predicting, better to invest in the thing directly. Otherwise, "prediction markets" are successful precisely when they can't influence the outcome, like sports betting.
I remember finding the election betting interesting last presidential election, but I also remember that it was spiked when Musk invested to change the odds.
[0] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/why-prediction-markets-aren...
Musk, being the world's richest person, is something of an outlier. He can afford to give free money to the market for longer than anyone else, and the size of the market might not be big enough to handle the imbalance.
There's a level of irrational spending which only institutional investors can counterbalance, and they might not have the risk appetite to get into a single market on a relatively less regulated platform that could rug pull them.
It's somewhat interesting how the wisdom of the crowd and economic theory for rational actors are usually combined as an argument for free markets.
While the reverse is not used as an argument against unchecked wealth.
My understanding is that unchecked wealth only remains that way until its owner acts irrationally on a stock exchange, at which point it is quite rapidly checked and becomes someone else's unchecked wealth.
Which is to say that Elon Musk can inflate any market he wants, but only by losing sums of money that will become increasingly significant as more and more people find out about the free cash giveaway.
I’ve used it.
There’s no functional difference in how markets work when 99% of wealth is owned by a handful of kings vs 99% of wealth being owned by a handful of oligarchs.
I don't really think so. You just swapped the term king to Oligarchs. In fact the Oligarchs are even worse because people think that they have freedom when they might not in fact have such freedom in the first place.
Why is polymarket any more or less dangerous than NFTs or naked option trading?
Fool and his money are quickly separated…
Because it is gambling.
NFTs have zero value but people seem to derive non-monetary value from them. Naked option trading is a form of gambling (as well as risk management) and, as a result, it is regulated.
Polymarket is a "financial investment" for regulatory purposes but is gambling, there is no legitimate risk management reason. As a result, there is massive scope for harm because it is gambling without any of the gambling regulations that exist in the US.
People on this site appear to be unaware that gambling is regulated where legal. I will give you an example: Polymarket do not comply with state regulator's exclusion/no market lists. This is immoral. Gambling companies should not take bets from users who have gambling problems, they should not market to them.
Offshore unregulated books will often market themselves to addicts saying that they do not comply with regulator's exclusion lists...this is an onshore book operating in Lexington Avenue New York, not out of a shed with a pig sty in Curaco. It is unbelievable at many levels.
> state regulator's exclusion/no market lists
I'm not familiar, but this sounds like lists of people who are not allowed to gamble? Do stockbrokers abide by these?
The article’s point was not that Polymarket is the problem-the point is validating and advertising Polymarket on national news outlets will have ugly consequences.
Yeah, once it's on television, it is similar to polling, which can influence elections because people like to vote for the winner. However, in this case it's even worse, because someone with deep pockets can influence the predictions.
But polling is still scientific and harder to manipulate than the betting markets. All of this is covered in th article. You should read it-it is a good article.
harder to manipulate than the betting markets.
Sorry, that was what I meant to imply with the second half of my comment. Still, in my country there have been debates about whether publishing polls shouldn't be forbidden n weeks or days before the election (currently publishing polls and campaigning is only forbidden on election day).
The solution is baked into the problem. If prediction markets become generally embraced by the public (mentioning them on CNN is part of that evolution) then they will be much harder to manipulate. Size matters.
You are assuming everyone stay rational & this becomes a pre-election itself (like poll) but it can change and multiple reasons
You got to give even a 1000$ or something in this bet, you are gonna be so vocal about support, manipulation of data to convince unconvinced voters to join you or other details
The unconvinced voters are simply gonna bet on the voting side after sometime. For context, a third of the population in US iirc doesn't vote so what's gonna happen is that a difference of few %'s Lead could turn into something massive
And that few % can easily be rigged by an irrational actor. You are thinking 1 person = 1 vote (yes/no) but I may be wrong but how these work is in the aggregate and so a rich person can cause much more disruption within the voting system "legally" as well.
The point here is the legal part where what can end/what would end up happening is that elites around the world with irrational money can basically get political bases & favours established around the world for their purposes
Suppose an election is at 49 A / 51 B but now a rich guy contacted A and said to invest x$ to now make the odds 51 A / 49 B and then this news gets to twitter or any platform and now people get false news and some undecided voters might go bet on 51 itself too so now it might be 53/47 and in real voting election 51 A/49B
Some Elections are really close so I am pretty sure something like this is bound to happen sooner than later
> the point is validating and advertising Polymarket on national news outlets will have ugly consequences.
Coinbase
Robinhood
DraftKings
FanDuel
Yes, all of those are equally problematic.
Polymarket here is one example among the companies causing the problem. Legislation that addresses the problem should affect all the listed companies and more, not just Polymarket.
Giving credence and advertisement to all of those has caused huge societal problems. Sports Betting is a huge problem.
To be fair, when you place bets on Polymarket, your losses are limited to the money you put up.
But if you write uncovered options, your losses are theoretically unlimited.
Agreed, though. It's bizarre that this isn't regulated exactly like gambling. Because... that's what it is.
Marketed to a broader audience with more users, like sports betting?
And to be fair options trading used to be pretty limited in users too, until apps like robinhood tried to democratize it.
Replace the word "democratize" with "unleash" and that's a far more accurate descriptor.
It's not democratic if you can't destroy it, and believe me a majority of people want to destroy it.
Zvi Mowshowitz has an excellent article on the devastating effects that legalizing sports betting has had: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...
Personally I find it sickening to see ads that say you can get rich betting on the weather. I haven't seen ads for polymarket but Kalshi's ads are absolutely predatory.
Naked option trading is certainly the worst of the three from a financial risk perspective for the beginner.
Although polymarket would do the best at "attraction" towards the average uninformed consumer because the bets and how to place them are far more understandable than the various option trading strategies.
It bother lowers the threshold and increases the breadth of things that can be bet in. It's a gambling addiction nightmare.
Exactly! Friction matters a lot.
It's a website where people can make bets on how certain geopolitical and public events shake out.
I used to think it's just yet another way to people with more money than sense to get their kicks.
But then I saw the true reason why the platform is terrifying - it gives people who have nontrivial amounts riding on the line a very powerful incentive to influence said events.
I have seen expertly crafted and highly convincing narratives - that I know to be false from firsthand experience - spring up inside (and presumably outside) the platform spring up on an issue. There was the thing where the ISW (a reputable military think tank) reported an Ukrainian city was captured (when in fact it wasn't) in order to win a bet.
Imagine if next time someone leaks some military intel in order to hedge a bet. Money, especially lots of it, is a very powerful motivator.
There's also no way to check and control who has insider info or has influence on the outcome (as betting against them is essentially suicide)
It gives people in power, wether it be the government or even an NBA ref, a vehicle to profit off of conflicts of interest / fixing games / etc...
Ive seen people point out White House press conferences do weird shit, like cut the conference 10 seconds before some polymarket prop bet of "how long will this press conference be".
Much more heinously, a few months ago right before one of Trumps asinine tariff announcements, someone took out a $300M BTC short position that was almost certainly from a WH insider.
I honestly don't care if someone loses all their money gambling, but the problem I have is how so many institutions are able to be undermined at a fundamental level do the existence of polymarket.
>It gives people in power, wether it be the government or even an NBA ref, a vehicle to profit off of conflicts of interest / fixing games / etc...
there is the stock market for those things, where insider trading is nigh invisible to public.
I think you have completey missed my point. The stock market only allows you to trade securities, and (in theory) there is a lot of regulation and enforcement on who buys / sells stocks. Additionally, no one has the power to magically set a stock price to be a certain price on a certain date.
Polymarket all of a sudden makes it much easier to make money betting on an outcome people control. Looking at polymarket, I see bets paying 100-1 based on the number of tweets Elon makes on a given day. I see another at 100-1 on wether the US airstrikes Iran today with $66m riding on it. All of a sudden theres an incentive of a life changing amount of money for goons in the whitehouse to strike Iran for shits and giggles.
Did you know that in 2007 some NBA Refs were caught rigging games for just $2000 a game? Now Refs don't even need to be payed off when you can make a position anonymously with bitcoin.
>Additionally, no one has the power to magically set a stock price to be a certain price on a certain date.
but many have the knowledge of which company or industry is about to experience legislation, which they can pass to any of their associates worldwide, who can then buy or short the affected entities and share the profit with the insider. Polymarket is just the idiocracy version of that.
I completely agree insider trading is an issue, especially with the legality of sitting congressmen being able to day trade. But with the exception of elected officials voting for bad bills / policies, the "victim" is whomever loses money on those trade. Its reactive to world events, meaning the world events aren't being changed by the insider trader.
Polymarket is worse as it gives a mechanism for proactively changing the outcome of events to a much more extreme degree, simply because someone can make money on it.
A benign version of this would be NFL employees betting $1million on the color of gatorade in the Superbowl.
An insane version of this would be Trump issuing a single airstrike on Iran after having a friend or family member place a $10M bet on polymarket that pays out $1B. It completely erodes the obligation our government officials have to not act in their self interests.
because not everyone does naked option trading or nfts... while straight up gambling on 50/50 odds is WAY more enticing.
> Fool and his money are quickly separated…
Example: I had a flutter on the US Election. The odds were well in favour of Trump winning and I figured that was never going to happen, so I thought I was putting 'smart money' on Kamala.
I stand by it being 'smart' money ;)
I underestimated 'dumb' (which, I guess, isn't 'smart').
The whole nation is eaten up by gambling and other vices at this time. It's not the first time such a thing has happened in a nation's history. Generally it occurs just after widespread monetary debasement and just before major, world shaking disasters. (You Are Here.)
Reference: Andrew Dickson White (first president of Cornell) "Fiat Money Inflation In France", published 1896:
"The government now began, and continued by spasms to grind out still more paper; commerce was at first stimulated by the difference in exchange; but this cause soon ceased to operate, and commerce, having been stimulated unhealthfully, wasted away.
Manufactures at first received a great impulse; but, ere long, this overproduction and overstimulus proved as fatal to them as to commerce. From time to time there was a revival of hope caused by an apparent revival of business; but this revival of business was at last seen to be caused more and more by the desire of far-seeing and cunning men of affairs to exchange paper money for objects of permanent value. As to the people at large, the classes living on fixed incomes and small salaries felt the pressure first, as soon as the purchasing power of their fixed incomes was reduced. Soon the great class living on wages felt it even more sadly.
Prices of the necessities of life increased: merchants were obliged to increase them, not only to cover depreciation of their merchandise, but also to cover their risk of loss from fluctuation; and, while the prices of products thus rose, wages, which had at first gone up under the general stimulus, lagged behind. Under the universal doubt and discouragement, commerce and manufactures were checked or destroyed. As a consequence the demand for labor was diminished; laboring men were thrown out of employment, and, under the operation of the simplest law of supply and demand, the price of labor--the daily wages of the laboring class--went down until, at a time when prices of food, clothing and various articles of consumption were enormous, wages were nearly as low as at the time preceding the first issue of irredeemable currency."
He's writing about Revolutionary France's debasement, but Mackay's Extraordinary Delusions documents France's debasement under John Law about 70 years earlier, which shows how easily such mistakes are repeated.
"The mercantile classes at first thought themselves exempt from the general misfortune. They were delighted at the apparent advance in the value of the goods upon their shelves. But they soon found that, as they increased prices to cover the inflation of currency and the risk from fluctuation and uncertainty, purchases became less in amount and payments less sure; a feeling of insecurity spread throughout the country; enterprise was deadened and stagnation followed.
New issues of paper were then clamored for as more drams are demanded by a drunkard. New issues only increased the evil; capitalists were all the more reluctant to embark their money on such a sea of doubt. Workmen of all sorts were more and more thrown out of employment. Issue after issue of currency came; but no relief resulted save a momentary stimulus, which aggravated the disease. The most ingenious evasions of natural laws in finance which the most subtle theorists could contrive were tried--all in vain; the most brilliant substitutes for those laws were tried; "self-regulating" schemes, "interconverting" schemes--all equally vain. All thoughtful men had lost confidence. All men were waiting; stagnation became worse and worse. At last came the collapse and then a return, by a fearful shock, to a state of things which presented something like certainty of remuneration to capital and labor. Then, and not till then, came the beginning of a new era of prosperity.
Just as dependent on the law of cause and effect was the moral development. Out of the inflation of prices grew a speculating class; and, in the complete uncertainty as to the future, all business became a game of chance, and all business men, gamblers. In city centers came a quick growth of stock-jobbers and speculators; and these set a debasing fashion in business which spread to the remotest parts of the country. Instead of satisfaction with legitimate profits, came a passion for inordinate gains. Then, too, as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. So came upon the nation the obliteration of thrift."
Please don't make posts consisting of quotes and nothing else. HN is a supposed to be a site for curious conversation. It's not hard to see how posts like this interrupt that and bog it down - imagine someone at a dinner party* reading entire paragraphs like this.
(* I don't know why I said "dinner party", since I don't go to those, the conversation usually isn't good, and they aren't my idea of fun, but oh well, it makes the point)
It definitely bogs things down. I would have preferred even an AI summary of the text, granted that it was accompanied by additional commentary to tie that to the subject at hand, rather than dumping in text with the assumption that the reader will understand the implicit connection.
I don't really understand your point. We should reject ideas that make us feel like we have to sit through a monologue at a dinner party?
We should find more interesting ways to communicate ideas than lengthy recitation.
"In this mania for yielding to present enjoyment rather than providing for future comfort were the seeds of new growths of wretchedness: luxury, senseless and extravagant, set in: this, too, spread as a fashion. To feed it, there came cheatery in the nation at large and corruption among officials and persons holding trusts. While men set such fashions in private and official business, women set fashions of extravagance in dress and living that added to the incentives to corruption. Faith in moral considerations, or even in good impulses, yielded to general distrust. National honor was thought a fiction cherished only by hypocrites. Patriotism was eaten out by cynicism.
Thus was the history of France logically developed in obedience to natural laws; such has, to a greater or less degree, always been the result of irredeemable paper, created according to the whim or interest of legislative assemblies rather than based upon standards of value permanent in their nature and agreed upon throughout the entire world. Such, we may fairly expect, will always be the result of them until the ñat of the Almighty shall evolve laws in the universe radically different from those which at present obtain.
And, finally, as to the general development of the theory and practice which all this history records: my subject has been Fiat Money in France; How it came; What it brought; and How it ended.
It came by seeking a remedy for a comparatively small evil in an evil infinitely more dangerous. To cure a disease temporary in its character, a corrosive poison was administered, which ate out the vitals of French prosperity.
It progressed according to a law in social physics which we may call the "law of accelerating issue and depreciation." It was comparatively easy to refrain from the first issue; it was exceedingly difficult to refrain from the second; to refrain from the third and those following was practically impossible.
It brought, as we have seen, commerce and manufactures, the mercantile interest, the agricultural interest, to ruin. It brought on these the same destruction which would come to a Hollander opening the dykes of the sea to irrigate his garden in a dry summer. It ended in the complete financial, moral and political prostration of France--a prostration from which only a Napoleon could raise it."
What's the point of posting entire book fragments here?
So that lazy people who form their worldview via a Quick Google Search, Wikipedia articles, and/or "news media" can actually have a chance to learn something real about the time they are living in.
It's like a dozen paragraphs, forming one complete argument. Is this too much material to take in all at once, in this brave new TLDR tomorrow?
I don't come here to read lengthy quotes from random authors. I come here for discussion and interesting viewpoints from our community. Posting a lengthy quote is low-effort; more valuable would be to write up your take on it in your own words, and, if you want, link to the original source material that you would have otherwise quoted.
> It's like a dozen paragraphs, forming one complete argument. Is this too much material to take in all at once, in this brave new TLDR tomorrow?
The issue is not that you cited a dozen-paragraph argument, it's that you inlined all the text directly into a series of comments instead of a link to the text on a separate page. It visually overwhelms the discussion thread and is disruptive to the broader discussion, which is not strictly against guidelines but generally seen as non-normative behavior.
Neat in theory, but in practice ineffective. Those who might read multiple large exerpts from a book would actually seek out the source.
Do as you wish, however I doubt this will have the effect you want here.
i enjoyed reading it thank you
The only material objection mentioned in the article is that prediction markets are easy to manipulate.
Well, only if they are thinly traded. If they get mentioned a lot more on CNN and CNBC, that is likely to change.
There's two forms of manipulation mentioned. One is changing the market to influence public perception, that does become harder as the market grows in size.
The other is accepting the bribe, sorry, taking the other side of the bet, and making something happen. That only becomes worse with scale. When you're in the position to accept a million dollar payout to cause the press conference to only last 64 minutes, or to invade a foreign country, suddenly you have a million new reasons to do so.
On any prediction market where a reasonably small group of humans decide the outcome, and there's enough money to matter, "betting no" is better understood as offering a fee to make it happen, conditioned on damages should someone accept your offer and fail to do so. "Betting yes" is better understood as agreeing to facilitate the outcome - or assisting in the price discovery mechanism that says facilitators are over charging.
They really aren't. Every attempt at manipulation just turns into easy money for those who predict the right odds.
That only really holds if reporting on the manipulation bets is not turned into effective propaganda for skewing events towards the manipulation outcome. So the main argument of the article holds IMO.
Edited to add: I'd like to rephrase that a bit actually. It doesn't even have to help bring about the particular outcome being bet on. It's enough that it can be used to shift public opinion in some way that's worth the cost to the manipulator.
Sure, but events where that kind of "skew" is effective are going to be quite rare. And even then, the incentive is just for everyone to try and "skew" the event as early as possible, where factors other than monetary cost or reward then become dominant. No different from what usually happens with no prediction market at all.
> It's enough that it can be used to shift public opinion in some way that's worth the cost to the manipulator.
This has been tried in the real world and is just not very effective. It's just too hard to move the price in ways that will shift public opinion when literally anyone else has a huge incentive to bet against you.
No, completely wrong. Deep markets are not more accurate.
People who are unfamiliar with how regulated gamblings works assume that the "market" is just lots of informed people rationally trading with each other. This is not how it works. Bookmakers post lines to a small group of syndicates up to a limit, they will often do this non-publicly, and this is how prices are set. They are not set by the "wisdom of crowds", they are set by people who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in predicting the outcome because bookmakers have an economic need for accurate lines.
When lines open to the public, there is often no significant movement after opening prices set by syndicates. That is because the public has no idea what the actual price should be, they are just uninformed noise traders clicking buttons randomly...that is the product too, the purpose of the product is entertainment not economic efficiency.
It is true that some lines are set incorrectly but the public is not able to benefit from this, because they do not have the information. I would guess that 95% of money made from gambling has been made by under 50 people. And, perhaps counter-intuitively, most of the time these people trading does not have an impact on price because they deliberately trade in a way that does not impact price. Again, the purpose is the same: they trade to make money, not produce economic efficiency.
The people who think prediction markets are useful in any way are people who never traded any markets and couldn't predict if the sun is going to come up tomorrow. If gamblers are noise traders, these people are noise speakers. These markets are completely pointless, gambling is economically pointless outside of the pleasure that people get from entertainment.
Noise traders ultimately create an even greater incentive for accurate prediction. The fact that the odds are set at the start and never change just proves that there's very little change in relevant information about upcoming sport games, races etc. where regulated bets happen. That's totally normal. Bets about real-world events are a rather different matter though.
No, they don't. If you have a line that is beatable, that line has been open for a long time, and you have informed people profiting from that line, it will usually not move. People who have information will disguise their flow, they won't bet with places that will move the line against them when they bet (if you bet this with Pinnacle, for example, they will work out you are beating their line immediately, they have quants who can work out how you are beating their line, and you have permanently destroyed your edge) so you put money down at soft book somehow and they will likely not move line against you...meaning the line doesn't move.
Again, it is fairly common assumption that people make that it must be noise traders who are incentivizing syndicates. This is the case at open but not after, and there is a significant distinction between noise traders and noise traders through retail books. Retail books do not set the lines, they do not post lines early to syndicates, their product is completely different. There is literally no incentive for accurate prediction because the economic gain from noise trading does not accrue to anyone who has information. 95% accrues to firms with the greatest marketing advantage, again...this is entertainment, it is not about accurate prediction, you are misunderstanding at a very fundamental level what is going on here. It is like going to see the Minecraft Movie and thinking this is artistic expression on the level of Tokyo Story.
This would all be different if there were real markets underpinned by economic demand for this risk but there isn't. This is why Betfair failed. This is why these "prices" you see aren't actually real prices.
"Well, only if they are thinly traded."
Right now, they're all thin traded at their open. As soon as they are created is when you see the volatility that makes them enticing. Once you get volume, there doesn't seem to be as much value to be had.
I’m increasingly convinced that the single most important concept to understand in the 21st century is Chesterton’s Fence:
"Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason.
I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.
> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason.
Moneyed interests saw a business opportunity, simple as that. Economic investment is becoming highly concentrated towards high-growth, high-risk opportunities and gambling has long thrived in the black market while staying current with technology.
> except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.
And this will only become more true as the economy continues to worsen. Economic downturns and market collapses favor the elite.
The powers that be have always saught wealth. At some point they gained enough power to start usurping the law that was supposed to keep them in check.
We should have made it clearer that monied interests have a choice: be kept in check by the law, or by the guillotine.
I'm too entralled by TikTok to build a guillotine.
> Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this time, for some vague unclear reason.
The things I've seen have been either "it's not right to tell me not to" or "non-participants can get useful information by observing the odds". What I haven't seen is claims that it won't be net-harmful to participants.
This seems like the contrarian argument to libertarianism. A libertarian might claim it is orthogonal to it in theory, but in practice it is very much relevant to a “break all the walls down” ideology.
> I think the simplified version of that reason is: no one really believes in anything anymore, except in the value that acquiring money by any means necessary is a good thing.
Hit the nail on the head and these are my thoughts exactly. I don't really want to be the guy that thinks his time is extra-ordinary (cue fake quote of Socrates saying "kids these days have no manners"), but... maybe it is?
For me it's like people don't even feel the need to pretend anymore. Selfish geopolitical calculations and greed have dictated all actors' actions in the 20th, that isn't new, but at least then there was a need to appear to abide by laws or to uphold human rights, even to strive for the eradication of war (and often it wasn't a disguise; people actually cared about those things).
States used to care or at least appear to care about progress, betterment, social improvement, moral improvement. Today? All any government speaks of is raw GDP growth %. And so gambling is pushed on TVs, streets, subways, kids' entertainment... The idea that a government of a nation would strive for the moral well-being of its citizens (by heavily curtailing gambling for example) seems positively quaint in 2026.
Anyway I'm tired, excuse the incoherent ramble.
Maybe, like myself, you're just aging into being a bit of a conservative.
Eh, I don’t think not wanting gambling and amoral behavior to consume society makes me a conservative in any real sense of the word. More just common sense pragmatism, is how I’d put it.
Maybe you mean in any modern sense of the word, but I'm pretty sure that is indeed a large part of what it used to mean.
The Chesterton’s Fence argument is an argument against progressive social changes, no?
No, it’s an argument against removing rules / making changes without deeply understanding why those rules exist in the first place, and what might happen when they are removed.
It’s perfectly fine to be for progressive social changes, as long as those criteria are met.
I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.
> I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.
The other meaning of "conservative", the one that's opposite "reckless".
It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive.
"It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive"
That's likely how most of the middle see themselves (if not in those words) - open to new changes but only if they're fully understood and not drastic.
No, sometimes social change is putting up a fence. And if social change is sometimes putting up fences, that would mean that not all fences are supposed to be torn down.
Chesterton’s fence has a specific definition. It’s not supposed to mean restrictions on social conduct or mores like you seem to be implying.
Amoral by what standard? That’s where the conservatism comes in.
Amoral, not immoral.
Sure, but Chesterton's Fence is a pretty foundational argument among many conservatives.
Conservatives think societies are hard to understand, which makes them hard to engineer, and replacing institutions that work with new inventions needs to be done carefully and slowly.
Think of it as grift and not gambling.
I think most serious left-wing people also hold a strong aversion to gambling on the grounds that it's financially exploitative and can be viewed as a regressive tax on the poor/uneducated.
Conservatives don't have a monopoly on morality.
Prediction markets have an alluring quality that they become a pulse-check on what humanity believes is going to happen, putting your money where your mouth is, and when they work like this they work pretty well and are an interesting instrument. Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, has even gone so far as to say that Insider Trading is a necessary source of data for prediction markets, if the goal of prediction markets is to be an accurate prediction of the future [1]. However, it seems increasingly clear that even this function of prediction markets doesn't behave how the silicon valley elite seem to think it does. In multiple markets throughout 2025, we saw insiders "snipe" correct predictions at the last minute, while odds were still against the correct outcome, moments before some finalizing event or news became public.
In theory, insiders give correct signal. But in practice, their volume is often too low to meaningfully move the market in the correct direction, and the timing of their order flow can be too late for that signal to actually be useful as a tool for predicting the future.
Its also critical to note that insider trading laws don't just exist to protect investors. They exist to protect the organizations the insiders belong to. The order flow on both prediction markets and the stock market is public information. Its one thing to short the company you work at because you know they're going to announce bad earnings. Its another thing entirely to take out a million-dollar position on "US Strikes Venezuela before Jan 3: Yes" on January 2nd. Sophisticated geopolitical opponents are monitoring these order flow feeds, and it begins to become a genuine matter of national security.
Overall, I am fine with prediction markets. I think they're an improvement over sports betting in the sense that they better-align incentives between the participants and the market-maker. In typical sports betting, the casinos running them set the odds, and participants take out positions against the casino; which means the casinos are incentivized against allowing anyone to actually make money on their platforms. This has surfaced many times in "professional sports betters" getting blacklisted. In comparison, PMs are a contract between participants, and the market-maker only takes a fee on each transaction (Robinhood's is 2.5%; quite high), which means the market-maker is only incentivized to increase PM order book volume and provide interesting markets. There's more opportunity for actual skill and dedication to shine through.
But, KYC is critical.
[1] https://x.com/itslirrato/status/2008184149450891724
> A billionaire congressional candidate can’t just send a check to Quinnipiac University and suddenly find himself as the polling front-runner, but he can place enormous Polymarket bets on himself that move the odds in his favor.
Maybe not with a specific pollster depending on their scruples, but you can definitely pay to be part of the poll. And that’s the first step to getting any stats whatsoever.
It doesn't really work, up until a few weeks before the NYC mayoral election. Polymarket had Andrew Cuomo winning by double digits.
It's a trash platform.
Stop calling them "prediction markets" and start calling them what they really are: corporatized bookies.
Bookies determine the odds and typically refuse to take bets from skilled bettors.
A market is open to all, with the odds influenced by all participants. In established betting markets such as for stocks, pros dedicate their careers and their organizations to improving the public estimates emerging from the market (though not for the sake of that improvement).
General prediction markets might turn out bad, but the above isn't an argument why, it's namecalling.
They're also heavily, heavily fixed of course. There's nothing stopping anonymous folks from betting on things they control/influence.
That's the point. To surface non-public information as a price signal.
I just can't take anyone who uses that term seriously. Just because a billionaire CEO told you it's not gambling doesn't mean it's true.
At least in gambling they don't let the sports referees and players gamble.
This is just another racket for those in power to continue making the world worse for just a little bit more gain for themselves.
Edit: Throttled like always, you guys hate me (and reality/law in this instance) https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/sports-gambling/20-charged-ba...
>>At least in gambling they don't let the sports referees and players gamble.
Oh c'mon now. This is completely impossible to police. Players and referees are not under constant supervision. They have families, friends, partners. Some of them got caught but you can be certain most weren't because it's just very difficult to catch.
There are always multiple people who know about key players' injuries, illness, other factors. The game is negative sum and additionally insiders take a a chunk for themselves. It's worse then roulette which at least doesn't pretend to be fair.
It isn't impossible to police. Players and referees are under supervision...I am not sure why you think this isn't the case. Regulated gambling companies i.e. not Polymarket, maintain lists of people who are connected to sports inc. through family. And they maintain systems that monitor unusual betting activity that is shared across the industry, it is quite easy to detect this activity because most of the flow that bookmakers see is uninformed. So if you see a customer that doesn't bet regularly put down $10k, line moves in their favour...that is obviously extremely suspicious because that won't happen with 95% of the volume you take.
As an example, there was a football player in England who had a friend that bet on a transfer market (a market that is extremely prone to inside information). It was detected immediately (despite being a relatively small bet of $10k, I have heard anecdotally that insiders have been detected in this market down to $500 bets), the player was banned, fined $500k, etc.
Btw, the reason these systems exist is because there are certain sports that are too lucrative not to make a market in but the economics/nature of the game mean that matches are easily fixed: 99.99% of this activity is low-ranked professional tennis, and surveillance has been very effective (all of this is funded, not by professional tennis, but by gambling companies). Generally, this isn't as prevalent with US sports because none of those preconditions exist for the major sports.
"Accounts payable: 11111. In 1 hour. John Wick. Excommunicado."
The essence of prediction markets.
Doesn’t seem like slow-walking so much as a mad-rush. I saw a Kalshi ad on tv last night.
since financial speculation exists, the news has been about gambling.
Regular people just didn’t know it cause the ticket to entry was to expensive.
Why is polymarket worse than cell phone games? At least polymarket essentially self identifies as gambling and isn't specifically marketed to children.
Cell phone games are knowingly losing money for fun. Polymarket is a sign of a failing, rapidly deregulatory economy.
And that's before we get into discussing the social damage to country that already sees more school shootings than weeks in a year (actually, 4x more), with rising political and civil tensions including assassinated politicians, adding potential "lose your house" to random events. As if it'll help calm things down and let us all keep a level head.
Or the implications of news companies reporting on these odds as if they reflect actual statistical likelihood, and how that gives the ultra wealthy yet another lever to control the view of reality the common people have.
chaos-for-profit incentive is what terrifies me
Isn't Polymarket very low stakes? For example "Will Trump acquire Greenland before 2027" market (the main one for this issue) has only 14m USD volume. This is like 2 orders of magnitude less money than is bet on El Classico 2 times a year.
There are risks connected when prediction markets run wild but Polymarket ain't it. There is also utility. It has high predictive value (it beats polls for elections from a little sample I've looked at) and allows you to make better decisions.
It beats polls for elections ONLY until someone notices it is being used as the basis of news stories and figures out it will be four orders of magnitude cheaper to manipulate that small market and make the news idiots broadcast that opinions have changed than to actually deploy all the adverts needed to change the opinions.
The very low stakes you point out make this even easier to put a thumb on the scales.
Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
The point of the article is that as soon as the "news" started reporting on prediction markets or corporatized gambling as if it was a measure of sentiment, it ceased to become a good measurement. That point has long passed.
News already broadcast tons of nonsense. Political commentary is just brain rot. Economic commentary might be just as well generated by one of those Markov chain string generators - it would make as much sense.
>>out it will be four orders of magnitude cheaper to manipulate that small market and make the news idiots broadcast that opinions have changed than to actually deploy all the adverts needed to change the opinions.
It will then become more expensive. Out of all the manipulation news and journalists do every day I am not sure why "people bet money at 1 to 4 odds that Trump takes Greenland before 2027" is particularly problematic. It's true people bet money on it at those odds. How is that more problematic that news running pro or anti Trump segments or broadcasting some random crystal ball readings to justify stock price fluctuations of the day? You can see how much money is bet on the market as well. It's not like you can spend 5 figures and suddenly shape the narrative.
There is a certain kind of person who thinks that all the news they disagree with is being faked by people who will spend multiple millions on Polymarket just to get a news story on CNN.
This person does not realise that most people do not pay attention to the news, that people in power are not glued to the news waiting for journalists to tell them what to say, or that the news is generally not very important...except to people like them who play out these fantasies about wealthy people mind-controlling them through CNN.
If insiders trade, the market becomes more accurate, which is good for society. Like WikiLeaks. Thus the MSN panic, the legacy establishment wants Polymarket to follow Assange's path.
That sounds a lot like "the magical hand of the markets" and "trickle down economics". A hope surrounded by a semblance of logic but not a lot thought put on the important details of how things actually work.
With this I mean: I can think of several ways in which this would go in the other direction (bad for society). And I am not an economics expert.
The problem discussed in the article was NOT insiders trading on secret information — it is the nearly opposite problem of manipulators trading and skewing the odds.
Insider trading seeks to trade with secret information and minimally obvious trades to avoid moving the markets until their position is locked in, in order to profit when the previously secret information becomes public and the market finally moves to a different price level.
Manipulators seek to move the market to create a false narrative that market-moving info exists when actual market-moving does NOT exist; the expectation is that people will see the price change and ASSUME there is information behind it, when there is actually just a manipulator willing to lose money to create that impression.
In a small market, such manipulation can be more cost-effective (make more of an impression for the same cost) vs buying advertisements.
I am guessing you must have made huge amounts of money from this irrational behaviour then. Congrats.
Yep, some WH member trading 400k$ an hour before an attack sure did wonders for "the good of society". So does media showing rates on gambling websites as if they were an oracle and not something that can be gamed for cheaper than a TV ad.
For fucks sake...
The internet is too connected and communication too instantaneous for Polymarket to be anything but a system to be gamed by those with money and influence.
Bet appears on Polymarket? You have the ability to direct people and resources to enact the under? Congrats you're rich!
>You have the ability to direct people and resources to enact the under? Congrats you're rich!
If you have the ability, you are already rich.
Rich people continually attempting to accrue even more money is not exactly an unheard-of phenomenon
What happens to rich people when they get more money, do you think they just stop further attempts at acquiring more?
Sometimes they go on a ketamine binge shrugs
Occasionally they make historically bad bets and blow up their fortunes, and it gets eaten up it all the smaller sharks circling behind them. It used to be most billionaires only lasted (as billionaires) for 3-7 years before collapsing.
The current stock market insane binge has changed that a bit.
Yeah, they historically don't like to keep increasing their wealth, Elon musk going from 350bn to nearly 800bn in like 2 years is definitely not an example of that.
The writer obviously hasn’t done any deep study of prediction markets and why they often provide greater insight than other polling techniques. Are they perfect? No. They predicted Hillary would win in 2016.
Had they existed then, prediction markets would have picked Hillary to win also
They did exist and they did predict Hilary.
You obviously missed the point of the article. The point is that validating and advertising Polymarket on national news outlets will have ugly consequences.
It's amazing how many people on HN didn't bother to actually read the article.
I did not miss the point of the article. You obviously missed my point, however.