Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

merkley.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#111

Post by JumpCrisscross »

andai wrote: post #27
staplung wrote: post #5

Unfortunately, it's not just elected officials that are problematic for prediction markets. The Secretary of War, for instance is not an elected official nor are leaders of the armed forces and there is definitely a prediction market for war. Multiply this by every powerful appointee and every career bureaucrat and see what kind of picture that paints.

It's also low-ranking members of the armed forces that have a lot more information than you'd expect. If you just banned the high ranking members from prediction markets, I actually don't think very much would change. (There would just be slightly more delay.)

> if you just banned the high ranking members from prediction markets, I actually don't think very much would change

Good behavior starts at the top. It becomes a lot easier to crack down on low-level corruption if the guys at the top aren't doing it.

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#112

Post by chii »

rangestransform wrote: post #102
MadnessASAP wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not transparent to me? What are they trying to do?

Deputize prediction market providers to force people to self incriminate à la KYC/AML laws today

> self incriminate

well, if they weren't doing something that would've otherwise been deemed illegal, then why would they consider it self-incriminating to have to follow KYC/AML rules?

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#113

Post by chii »

jkubicek wrote: post #71
toss1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS — make it transparent, not try to ban it. And the transparency must be real-time and MUST include the full dox on beneficial owner of the contract/bet, with steep jailtime for falsification/fronting, etc.. They can even say it is for tax purposes — they win that bet, they should pay income tax (and be able to deduct the costs of their losing bets against that specific income type). I want to know if a bunch of s…

Knowing who is making the bets doesn’t prevent mildly corrupt officials from driving the outcome that’s going to win them some cash. Knowing that high-level DOD official were betting on us invading Iran does us no good if the only reason we invaded Iran was so they could win their long-odds bet. Sure, we can try and shame them, but now they're rich and we're fighting another middle-east war.

What is the current method that exists which stops CEO/executives from short selling their own company's stock, then driving that company's value down (which is easy to accomplish)?

Why can't that same method be used to prevent or indict gov't insiders who tries to do the same?

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#114

Post by yieldcrv »

Retr0id wrote: post #108
yieldcrv wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a tool for gambling they require liquidity from people that are not in the know for adequate price discovery and exit liquidity worthwhile for participation

You need liquidity but there is no requirement that it comes from gamblers

Tell that to the gamblers? like be for real right now

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#115

Post by totony »

Having to put this much effort everytime a new technology comes out is so unproductive. How about have standards for elected officials not to abuse their power? Maybe have an ethics comittee or something? In academia, there's not a rule for every situation; ethics comittee handle this

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#116

Post by genxy »

yieldcrv wrote: post #94
genxy wrote: post #76

Not just insider info. Folks in the government can make those things happen, making the payout for super rare events even higher and more catastrophic. It is obvious how prediction markets could be used to put blind hits out on people.

that’s kind of the point, everyone is just cooperating right now unless you are a head of state it’s what the crypto anarchist paper Assassination Markets described in the 90s freaked the FBI out at the time, I think that guy just got out of prison for “unrelated” reasons

That was an interesting read on Jim Bell.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/03/at-largest-ice-...

> Staff at the nation’s largest Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility have placed bets on which detainee will be the next to die by suicide, according to new reporting from the Associated Press based on 911 calls and detainee accounts.

> Owen Ramsingh, a legal permanent resident who spent several weeks at the Camp East Montana detention facility in Texas, told AP that he overheard a security guard talking about a betting pool for which detainee would next die by suicide. The guard said he had paid $500 into the pot, which would all go to the winner with the most accurate predictions on detainees harming themselves.

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#117

Post by etyhhgfff »

schnebbau wrote: post #18

The answer is simple - you price in the chance that an insider could have an edge on you when making your prediction. It's all part of the game.

If you price that in then the best course of action would be not to bet unless you have insider info yourself. You cant win a game against players that already know the outcome.

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#119

Post by ministryofwarp »

chii wrote: post #112
rangestransform wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deputize prediction market providers to force people to self incriminate à la KYC/AML laws today

> self incriminate well, if they weren't doing something that would've otherwise been deemed illegal, then why would they consider it self-incriminating to have to follow KYC/AML rules?

If you haven't broken the law, why would you be willing to come down to the jail and breakfast in a cell each morning?

Re: Effort to prevent government officials from engaging in prediction markets

#120

Post by gosub100 »

stopbulying wrote: post #57
gosub100 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or campaigns could hedge their risk by buying the other guy. They either win the election or get all their expenses refunded.

> They either win the election or get all their expenses refunded. How would that work with something like the WH Press Secretary who has refused to give back some $350K in campaign donations (though currently FEC can't prosecute any campaign finance violations because they don't have a quorum because Trump has not nominated and confirmed enough FEC commissioners.)

I think trump has identified the inefficacy of our supposed checks and balances. In school, we were taught that the 3 branches of government protect against a rogue leader, which is obviously not true. After he is removed or ends his term, I hope the weaknesses in the system are fixed. Yeah I hate him, but the system was supposed to protect us from this outcome.
Post reply on HN