121–130 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally they aren't, but maybe the US will take over Sweden and the Nobel Foundation and make it happen.
...only to find out they invaded the wrong country! (Nobel peace prizes are awarded in Oslo)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely possible but if you were the presidents son I do think you'd be more likely to slowly buy in over 1+ weeks. If you were media related you'd want to do a giant bet before anybody else as you know lots of other people know and it's only a matter of time when someone else exploits it, and you only know slightly ahead of time. When you have insider information it's typically most profitable or at the very leas…
> Absolutely possible but if you were the presidents son I do think you'd be more likely to slowly buy in over 1+ weeks. If you're the president's son, ~$400k is probably not worth your time.
How long before the government intentionally does something stupid so that a Prediction Market pays off? Probably won't happen actually, since they can just do blatant insider trading on the stock market instead.
The money involved in prediction markets at present isn't enough for governments to bother. $436k is a nice windfall for your average individual, but that's peanuts for anyone at a level to influence government actions.
Where's the evidence for this? Note the lack of links and that all of these Maduro reports originate from X which is rampant with polymarket grifters claiming secret insights into how the big bets are made. Perhaps somebody here can provide a Polymarket link (not screenshots) to the proof? I'm not saying the BBC has been scammed here but the only link I've found to the alleged account 404s. Perhaps its been taken dow…
https://web.archive.org/web/20260104031407/https://polymarke... Looks like Polymarket took the profile down but it’s still available on the Internet Archive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely has been! In general prediction markets can’t be “correct” or “incorrect” - for instance if a prediction market says there’s a 60% chance of an event occurring, and it doesn’t occur, was the market right or wrong? Well it’s hard to say - certainly the market said the event was more likely to occur than not, but only just, and who knows? Maybe the event _only just_ occurred, and very nearly didn’t! So ge…
Charlie Kirk has a 3% chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize right now according to Polymarket. He's climbed from 1% since Maduro was arrested. It seems unlikely since Nobels aren't awarded posthumously.
I'm not sure the same(any) rules apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should we want prediction markets to be fair? I want them to reveal facts about the world. They only need to be fair inasmuch as it serves that goal. I don't think it wouldn serve that goal to forbid insider trading? (Why do we forbid insider trading in the stock market? Not because it's unfair. Because it makes the market worse at doing what we want it to do, which is funding the most productive enterprises).
>Why should we want prediction markets to be fair? I want them to reveal facts about the world. I do not think this is a reasonable position. The problem is that predicting "real facts about the world" creates a situation where you could take out an place a sizable bet on your neighbors house burning down. Allowing prediction markets is, thusly, inherently problematic. Allowing them to be anonymized with insider info…
If you think prediction or stock markets should be "fair" then you have a very bizarre definition of fair (one that's compatible with a game that only rich people can win).
Also desiring "fairness" implies that to imply the market's primary purpose is as a game. If it's just a game, it's nothing but toxic gambling.
ANYWAY: pointing to one possible case of misuse and then leaping to "inherently problematic" is pretty weak IMO. Hopefully you can tell I'm not a prediction market booster, there's a lot about them that I think it's pretty suspect. But this is a pretty lame line of reasoning IMO.
"Someone might shoot people with it" -> valid reason for gun control. Guns are for shooting people.
"Someone might stab someone with it" -> not a valid reason to ban knives. We already ban stabbing people. We take precautions to try and mitigate the dangers of knives, because they have a very big upside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally they aren't, but maybe the US will take over Sweden and the Nobel Foundation and make it happen.
...only to find out they invaded the wrong country! (Nobel peace prizes are awarded in Oslo)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"that a prediction market effectively liberates the directional content of that information by converting it into prices." I can see this, and I guess maybe my issue is with the phrasing of "aggregating" insider information. Because you aren't just aggregating insider info, you are also aggregating non-insider information, but no one (but the insider) knows what is right. Is there different types of prediction market…
I would argue that a "market" in whether it will rain on Saturday isn't really a prediction market, or even a market, at all. It's just a bookmaking operation. The core function of any market, in anything, is price discovery. What's the difference between a "Monday it will rain" market and a NCAAF prop bet on a team's rushing yards? I could argue that DraftKings prop bets are actually more like prediction markets tha…
How would you define the difference?
Cat bond premiums absolutely bet on near-term weather odds. I’d argue they’re prediction-esque.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charlie Kirk has a 3% chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize right now according to Polymarket. He's climbed from 1% since Maduro was arrested. It seems unlikely since Nobels aren't awarded posthumously.
Nobel Peace Prizes are Peace Prizes as much as they are Nobel Prizes. I'm not sure the same(any) rules apply.
It would make the likes of Kissinger getting it easier to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why should we want prediction markets to be fair? I want them to reveal facts about the world. I do not think this is a reasonable position. The problem is that predicting "real facts about the world" creates a situation where you could take out an place a sizable bet on your neighbors house burning down. Allowing prediction markets is, thusly, inherently problematic. Allowing them to be anonymized with insider info…
You can say you don't want prediction markets and that's fine. It's not responding to my comment though which is saying that if we have prediction markets, the goal should be for them to reveal facts about the world. If you think prediction or stock markets should be "fair" then you have a very bizarre definition of fair (one that's compatible with a game that only rich people can win). Also desiring "fairness" impli…
Words matter - “prediction markets” just smooths over grift by making it sound reasonable.