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

Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 202 posts

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#111

Post by munk-a »

cosmojg wrote: post #72
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right so how are you going to find it and who is going to prosecute the insider trading here? My point isn't that an unregulated prediction market (Polymarket non-US markets are non-CFTC certified) can obscure insider trading. My point is that Brent has enough liquidity that an insider can trade without moving markets. There's plenty of insiders that work on a contract basis and aren't required to disclose trades by…

Also, isn't insider trading the whole point of prediction markets? They were originally conceptualized as information aggregators.

If they were then that memo got lost when it reached the general populace that sees them as a gambling vehicle. I think it'd be extremely reasonable if people with qualified access to information like this were banned from leveraging it on prediction markets.

If someone has news they want to get out they can just use the media.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#112

Post by troyvit »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #63
tmnvix wrote: post #15

> “For the purposes of this market, an ‘official ceasefire agreement’ requires clear public confirmation from both the United States government and the government of Iran that they have agreed to halt military hostilities against one another.” (by March 31) Seems a rather risky bet considering how deep Israel has ventured into its war in Lebanon. Very doubtful they will stop anytime soon. Given the leverage Israel ha…

[flagged]

> They don't have a navy anymore

I get where you're coming from in a lot of ways, but the strait (edited) remains closed, and it's not just a perception issue. From this article [0]:

> U.S. officials have previously declared the Iranian Navy to have been rendered combat ineffective, but many of the more than 120 ships it has targeted so far have been larger vessels. Iran has hundreds of fast boats, some of which are armed with short-range anti-ship missiles, as well as artillery rockets and other weapons. They can also be used to lay naval mines. These fleets are inherently harder to find and fix, and do not need large ports to operate from.

Maybe that's why very few ships are still getting through. The rest of the article is a fun read about how A-10s are taking out those small boats, but there's still a whole lot of work left to do. I think Iran still has a lot of asymmetric juice left, and at some point the law of diminishing returns will kick in.

On the other hand it was a war of choice and the U.S. can make their declaration of victory look like whatever they want it to.

[0] https://www.twz.com/air/a-10-warthogs-are-prowling-for-irani...

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#113

Post by troyvit »

bjackman wrote: post #30

What signs? This article is absolute slop (not AI, but slop). I do not have any reason to doubt that people are doing insider trading. The US admin is obviously corrupt and the Iran attacks are the most abject symptom of its corruption so far. But you can't just put out a bunch of completely isolated observations with zero analysis and say "that looks like insider trading". There is nothing at all in here that presen…

I think it would be fun to discover that there is inside trading going on here, but it's coming from Iranians.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#114

Post by colechristensen »

delecti wrote: post #29
mikkupikku wrote: post #17

If the administration decides to end this stupid war just so they can cash out some profitable bets... I don't even know what I would think. The whole thing is so stupid it makes my head hurt.

I think the main reason is that they were all too incompetent to realize what the effects of the war would be on the global financial system. The bets were probably just a happy opportunity for corruption. > The whole thing is so stupid it makes my head hurt Look on the bright side, at least the malicious actors aren't able to competently implement their goals.

The economic effects impact the rest of the world much more than the US, which may have been somebody's planning point, although on the surface they seem to be too stupid to come up with this idea.

The US/North America is petroleum-product-independent-ish. We produce approximately as much hydrocarbons as we use. We also could produce a lot more but tar sands, shale oil, etc. are more expensive to produce and not very profitable at $60/bbl but it's there ready for the taking. When you're talking about how we aren't it's about how certain refineries are tuned for which type of oil and how we import unrefined and export the refined products, etc... but we're not RUNNING OUT of oil or energy.

Many places in the rest of the world aren't like that and will suffer much greater losses while the US is relatively strong. Of course we're all linked, but a power hungry dictator might only really care who's on top in a relative sense even if everybody is dragged down.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#115

Post by foxglacier »

It's not a sign of insider trading that several people created accounts "around the time" Trump suggested winding down the war. It could have been after he publicly said that. This article is just made up crap fueling the FUD about government secrets being leaked by predictions markets.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#116

Post by bigfatkitten »

Aurornis wrote: post #105
fabian2k wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What scandal? They're openly corrupt and no consequences have followed so far.

Noem was removed from her position recently due to scandal. Weeks ago.

Noem was removed because she fell out of favour with Trump.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#117

Post by Karrot_Kream »

eunos wrote: post #88
tencentshill wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A market with regulations, vs. no regulations.

Brent isn't security products so not covered under anti insider trading law right?

STOCK Act should cover commodities futures, so Brent and WTI should be covered.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#118

Post by KumaBear »

coevcan wrote: post #107
mikkupikku wrote: post #17

If the administration decides to end this stupid war just so they can cash out some profitable bets... I don't even know what I would think. The whole thing is so stupid it makes my head hurt.

Are you really going to suggest trump cares about an $820k bet? He doesn't even care to collect his presidential salary. I'm sure he exaggerates his wealth, but we know he's at least a billionaire.

He milks the government through other means such as crypto, llc’s, and overseas bribes “I mean deals”.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#119

Post by Karrot_Kream »

stevenwoo wrote: post #94
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #20

Couldn't insiders just trade Brent Crude futures and do the same thing? There's more than enough liquidity in Brent that an insider can make great money.

Lots of lucky trades timed just prior to and in aftermath of latest Trump social media announcement. It could be coincidence or not. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/23/volume-in-stock-and-oil-futu...

Yeah this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Re: Bets on US-Iran ceasefire show signs of insider knowledge, say experts

#120

Post by Aurornis »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #116
Aurornis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noem was removed from her position recently due to scandal. Weeks ago.

Noem was removed because she fell out of favour with Trump.

Yes, due to the $220 million advertising spend scandal and her claims about it.
Post reply on HN