Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Ali Khamenei was recently murdered, at a price tag of several tens of billions of dollars, so far. His more radical son now occupies his former position. As a result, is the world a better place?
[flagged]
Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
381–390 of 559 posts
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can already do this easily with the stock market. Usually though people's pay/power directly correlates with how badly they can screw the company if they go (legally) rogue. But anyone can get a job at XYZ, buy puts, and go and set the factory on fire the next day. Betting markets don't change the fact that you'll be arrested, except that you'll be arrested for a few thousand dollars rather than whatever you can…
The difference is if someone sets fire to a factory that fire will be investigated and odds are that person will be caught (not always, but few people know how to set a fire that large and cover their tracks). By contracts someone who works in the factory is much more likely to be able to figure out how to "have an accident" doing something they normally do, everyone knows it is then but they just get a "do better ne…
Again, you can already do this with the stock market.
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ali Khamenei was recently murdered, at a price tag of several tens of billions of dollars, so far. His more radical son now occupies his former position. As a result, is the world a better place?
[flagged]
Maybe drop the obviously bad faith loaded responses.
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the market of course. In looking it up the only markets that have ever come even close to that sort of payout are things like presidential elections where the risks of insiderism or gaming are negligible, and there's extremely large public interest in it. Nobody's making millions betting on things like the weather.
>where the risks of insiderism or gaming are negligible, and there's extremely large public interest in it. So what's the point of polymarket, then? If at best we get "negligible" "insiderism", how is it that we are supposed to be benefitting from this as a society the way OP and others insist that revealing insider preferences "would"
Because it's the most effective tool we know of for surfacing the true odds of something (Which also includes the fact that insiders will place outsized bets to move the needle towards the truth.)
An example would be the latest presidential election, where professional pollsters at them at almost 50/50, but the prediction markets had trump by a landslide. He went on to win even the popular vote.
The benefit comes to people who don't even participate, and just take notes.
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#385Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you are privately allowed to bet on whatever you like with another individual. That is indeed legally fine, though potentially distasteful. Polymarket is facilitating bets between people, not bets with the house. Gambling and insurance are both bets with the house.
> Well, you are privately allowed to bet on whatever you like with another individual. What jurisdiction are we painting with that broad brush? This is far from universally true, even in the US.
Could you provide an example?
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you are privately allowed to bet on whatever you like with another individual. That is indeed legally fine, though potentially distasteful. Polymarket is facilitating bets between people, not bets with the house. Gambling and insurance are both bets with the house.
Can you name the individuals you are betting with on Polymarket? Can they name you?
[deleted]
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no house? Betting is against other players
You are betting against insiders, or rather giving money to insiders...
Ok, who are insiders for these bets:
* What price will Bitcoin hit in May?
* SpaceX IPO closing market cap above ___ ?
* Highest temperature in Amsterdam on May 26?
* Presidential Election Winner 2028
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
>where the risks of insiderism or gaming are negligible, and there's extremely large public interest in it. So what's the point of polymarket, then? If at best we get "negligible" "insiderism", how is it that we are supposed to be benefitting from this as a society the way OP and others insist that revealing insider preferences "would"
Because it's the most effective tool we know of for surfacing the true odds of something (Which also includes the fact that insiders will place outsized bets to move the needle towards the truth.) An example would be the latest presidential election, where professional pollsters at them at almost 50/50, but the prediction markets had trump by a landslide. He went on to win even the popular vote. The benefit comes to…
>An example would be the latest presidential election, where professional pollsters at them at almost 50/50, but the prediction markets had trump by a landslide. He went on to win even the popular vote.
Trump didn't win by a landslide and he barely won the popular vote...
>The benefit comes to people who don't even participate, and just take notes.
Praying someone has an example besides the election, to which it seems to have made absolutely no difference at all
Re: Spain blocks prediction markets Polymarket, Kalshi over lack of gambling licence
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also bad if such crucial information is based on a single sensor with barely any physical security
This logic is how we ended up with TSA. "What do you mean, people used to just walk up to planes with their shoes on and a FULL 8-ounce water bottle in hand with barely any physical security?" It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons, vs. trying to strengthen the commons against all possible adversarial behavior.
> It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons
It's impossible. No matter how good of a job you do, there will _always_ be people out to watch it all burn.