Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term • Hacker News Board

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#111

Post by chii » Thu, May 28, 2026, 9:24 AM UTC

valleyer wrote: post #85

chii wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this good? it is good if the losers are voluntarily participating. They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it, and therefore, it is reasonable that they expected to win the bet. The only problem i have with polymarket (and others like it) are that insiders can often remain anonymous. It should not, and if an insider earns, but their win requires they remain anonymous or face some social/reputationa…

In most modern societies, we regulate all sorts of things that people would otherwise willingly do to their own detriment. We ban drugs; we have labor laws; we have usury laws; we require seatbelts; we have securities regulations; etc. (Notably, until very recently, this included most forms of gambling.) So the mere fact that losers are voluntary does not, IMO, make the situation good.

all of those things you mentioned have damages sustained on third parties that did not have consent. And tbh, my opinion is that the banning of drugs have done more harm than not banning it (but instead, allow it to be sold safely and cheaply).

Gambling to me, is like that. Banning it doesn't stop it, and it has barely any harm other than to the person who over-indulge. Regulating it is a good idea - where regulating means there's oversight on cheating, on the platform's governance etc.

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#112

Post by speed_spread » Thu, May 28, 2026, 9:32 AM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #89

efitz wrote: post #82

I’m completely failing to get outraged here. I think that the person misused Google internal information and deserves termination or other discipline, but I’m struggling to otherwise see the harm in what they did. Is insider trading a crime on prediction markets? Doesn’t it contribute to the accuracy of the pricing of prediction contracts, and therefore is good for the prediction market?

> Is insider trading a crime on prediction markets? Yes, it is both against the CFTC's regulations and against the companies' T&Cs. > Doesn’t it contribute to the accuracy of the pricing of prediction contracts, and therefore is good for the prediction market? That's irrelevant, the purpose of these markets is to provide fair bets for entertainment, not information.

By entertainment I assume you mean money laundering?

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#113

Post by dist-epoch » Thu, May 28, 2026, 9:38 AM UTC

frakkingcylons wrote: post #25

If you worked at Google for 12 years, it seems pretty irrational to commit this kind of crime for only $1M. Maybe there’s a chance he can get pardoned before 2029 lol

[flagged]

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#114

Post by scott_w » Thu, May 28, 2026, 9:42 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #64

55555 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It barely makes sense, though? The idea is that it will surface insider information to the public. That happens only because the insider is financially incentivized to place a bet. But they will only bet if they can win money, and they can only win money if someone is taking the other side of their bet, which necessarily means someone without their insider information. In other words, prediction markets require sucke…

> Is this good? it is good if the losers are voluntarily participating. They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it, and therefore, it is reasonable that they expected to win the bet. The only problem i have with polymarket (and others like it) are that insiders can often remain anonymous. It should not, and if an insider earns, but their win requires they remain anonymous or face some social/reputationa…

Are they voluntarily participating if they’re being lied to about what they’re participating in? What distinguishes the whole thing from fraud?

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#115

Post by hawkice » Thu, May 28, 2026, 9:45 AM UTC

dist-epoch wrote: post #113

frakkingcylons wrote: post #25

If you worked at Google for 12 years, it seems pretty irrational to commit this kind of crime for only $1M. Maybe there’s a chance he can get pardoned before 2029 lol

[flagged]

I feel like this pastiche burned through whatever comedy potential it had before mid-2017.

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#116

Post by bartvk » Thu, May 28, 2026, 10:13 AM UTC

napolux wrote: post #73

polymarket should be illegal, challenge me.

There's manipulation going on, but if you fight that, why do you feel that prediction markets should be illegal?

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#117

Post by brainwad » Thu, May 28, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC

mortsnort wrote: post #37

Why are we wasting government money cracking down on Polymarket betting? The most offensive thing in this article is the government pretending Polymarket bets are securities. Prediction markets provide no benefit to society and don't need to exist.

> pretending Polymarket bets are securities

No, they are pretending they are _commodities_. Pretending things are securities is disfavoured by the current administration.

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#118

Post by rafram » Thu, May 28, 2026, 10:31 AM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #91

cm2187 wrote: post #79

I am confused. Are bets considered securities? I thought the CFTC and insider dealing laws applied to securities, not betting.

If they recognize they are betting companies, they have no right to operate in the majority of the states. So, they found the CFTC willing to pretend that these betting contracts are in fact securities, and that is how they can legally operate.

Commodities, not securities. The CFTC doesn’t regulate securities.

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#119

Post by wallst07 » Thu, May 28, 2026, 10:32 AM UTC

nezi wrote: post #42

nostrademons wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sort of the point of prediction markets: they surface insider information by allowing people to profit off of it. The benefit is to people watching the prices , who can then use that information to make better decisions ahead of the answer being revealed to the public. It's not necessarily to market participants, who need to be aware of who else is trading the market and have a credible reason to believe they…

Sure, but let’s consider the bet the accused took: who is the most searched person in 2025. What benefit is there in knowing this ahead of time? Who is making decisions based on this?

If you were going to write a article or print a magazine cover , you might want to know this.

You could also take the other side to hedge some risk. It's up to them to define the value, not you for them.

Re: Google employee charged with $1M Polymarket insider trading bet on search term

#120

Post by wallst07 » Thu, May 28, 2026, 10:33 AM UTC

mikeweiss wrote: post #43

hoten wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are open about it. John Oliver did a piece on it last month and I recall an interview where the founder of one of these prediction markets shared this as a beneficial effect of the product.

I once asked in Kalshi subreddit if insider trading was the entire point and my post was removed by the mods..

That [getting banned] doesn't tell you anything really, they probably just thought you were a troll.

I get banned from subs sometimes by just asking a opposing question.