51–60 of 162 posts
Isnt this silly when you can calculate the chance of war in Iran by oil futures instead. Prediction markets are just explicit markers of information that is already being traded on in 100 different ways.
The idea is not economic hedging but gambling and corruption
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another side effect of being automated out of a purposeful life.
The purpose of life is work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this wasn't driven by Oil. It was driven by Israel.
No idea why you're being downvoted, there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case. We are doing this because of Israel. Marco Rubio said outright we went in because of Israel. Just watch Trump's speeches, he literally talks about the power of the Israel lobby and hopes he is doing a good job for them. Netanyahu has visited Trump 7 times in the last year, each visit has been leading up to this move. Trump's bi…
Thanks for having my back! I think of HN as a community of intelligent people and it's always disappointing to be reminded that that alone is no guarantee of healthy discourse.
> The day before, 150 users bet at least $1,000 that the United States would strike Iran within the next 24 hours Yeah, I heard the same thing at the same time from several friends. And I'm not talking top brass, so it must have been pretty obvious at that point.
There were definite geopolitical signals of an impending conflict - ie. warships moving into the region, Iran increasing oil exports just days before the attack. I guess what might be more interesting is how many people bet $1000 the day before that, and the day before that. That would be more helpful to determine what is noise from well-informed outsiders vs. insiders.
As a noob to this area, how would [Iran increasing oil exports] indicate [higher chance of impending conflict]? Is the idea that Iran exported more oil to raise some funds in expectation of the conflict? Surely if Iran expected conflict it would have done more than just increase oil exports?
This particular market wasn’t about the likelihood of a strike but the probability of radical success. It seems at least possible in the circumstances that the Iran Supreme leader chose his own fate, which was inherently predicable and also exactly what I seem to recall him publicly predicting, albeit without a strict deadline.[3]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86yjnw4x49o
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-says-he-g...
[3] https://www.malaysianow.com/news/2026/03/01/khamenei-killed-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is not economic hedging but gambling and corruption
Yes, but they are saying that if you allow economic hedging, you are also allowing gambling - just a bit more indirectly.
"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not, it’s safe to assume, a devoted Polymarket user."
We have to assume that he made the choice to be a martyr. He was in his own home at the same time that the entire world could see the enormous buildup of resources the US was placing in the area. Trump did exactly the same tired "will he or won't he" that he has done for various other actions.
An attack was the most obvious event on the planet. This isn't some magical ret-conning, but anyone with a functioning brain could predicted the outcome.
I think the Polymarket angle to this is more that people were betting on whether he would choose existence over martyrdom. He could have hidden in countless places and sent various tirade videos for years, Osama-style, but this 86 year old man just decided to wait for the bombs.
And on Venezuela, anyone who thinks that was just a fantastically successful op is not rational. Clearly Trump had buy-in by either the Russians -- in return for some favours on Ukraine -- or various members in the Venezuela military (or most likely of all, both). Seeing several CH-47s flying over an entirely predictable target area utterly guarantees this.
Venezuela was a coup that levered the US military to fulfil it cleanly. With absolutely and complete certainty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but less direct incentive than "If my friends (and I) bet money on X, and I do X, they (and I) make money."
Not by much, plus the volume is much lower on prediction markets, so people with large pockets who happen to be in power and are capable of doing big moves like this would make more money on the oil futures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were definite geopolitical signals of an impending conflict - ie. warships moving into the region, Iran increasing oil exports just days before the attack. I guess what might be more interesting is how many people bet $1000 the day before that, and the day before that. That would be more helpful to determine what is noise from well-informed outsiders vs. insiders.
> There were definite geopolitical signals of an impending conflict - ie. warships moving into the region, Iran increasing oil exports just days before the attack. As a noob to this area, how would [Iran increasing oil exports] indicate [higher chance of impending conflict]? Is the idea that Iran exported more oil to raise some funds in expectation of the conflict? Surely if Iran expected conflict it would have done…
Isnt this silly when you can calculate the chance of war in Iran by oil futures instead. Prediction markets are just explicit markers of information that is already being traded on in 100 different ways.