121–130 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Do you follow road rules? Why don't you apply that jail analogy to that?
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.
If we're not going to ban prediction markets, we could at least make it a requirement that all bets are public and associated with a real identity. That'd go a long way towards curbing the corruption of these things, while preserving (or even greatly enhancing) their "predictive power."
I believe prediction markets and sports betting apps are societal failures that only serve to alienate the masses and further extract wealth to the top. Let's ban them all, we're not losing anything.
I recall a few finance papers saying (paraphrasing) "approximately all private info is reflected in stock prices". The same is obviously true of prediction markets. If government officials are banned, they'll just give a little wink to a relative or friend, and the prediction markets will reflect the private information. On a personal note, I find these markets incredibly useful in day to day life. There's been a jok…
I think you're thinking of the efficient-market hypothesis. The hypothesis is that prices reflect all available information, and "available information" is the key part. The "strong form" includes private information, but research has not found support for this. And even the "semi-strong form" falls apart. For instance, the market for small cap stocks is not as efficient as the market for large cap stocks. You need a…
Sort of on-topic Q for you: What is your general take on HN discussion on finance markets/technology. They don't come up often, but when they do, I find a majority of the comments show that people have very limited understanding of traditional capital markets (non VC).
I don't have a PhD but have worked in the industry for 20+ years mostly in trading technology across fixed income and equities.
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.
If I was a NOAA meteorologist I'd be making bank insider trading temperature prediction markets.
If someone really smart knows what will happen, that will make the market’s predictive ability more accurate.
Making insider/true expert information public more quickly in the form of influencing prices in a toy market is THE ENTIRE POINT of prediction markets. Read the original papers on them. http://li.mit.edu/Stuff/CNSE/Paper/Hanson90.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/3216893 https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/insiderbet.pdf
What we don’t want, and what we should enforce, is participants in prediction markets influencing the events they’re betting on (like the recent basketball betting scandal).
I recall a few finance papers saying (paraphrasing) "approximately all private info is reflected in stock prices". The same is obviously true of prediction markets. If government officials are banned, they'll just give a little wink to a relative or friend, and the prediction markets will reflect the private information. On a personal note, I find these markets incredibly useful in day to day life. There's been a jok…
For example, I’m guessing more liquidity in a market means a signal is more predictive. But how much volume is enough to make a signal reliable? What’s the scale? Is $100k unreliable and $100m really good?
Are there other factors that impact a signal’s predictive strength?
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.
If we're not going to ban prediction markets, we could at least make it a requirement that all bets are public and associated with a real identity. That'd go a long way towards curbing the corruption of these things, while preserving (or even greatly enhancing) their "predictive power."
Public trades will make people targets and that will create weird incentives.
https://apnews.com/article/crypto-bitcoin-kidnapping-wrench-...
Why do “prediction” markets benefit from bets over nominal sums? Isn’t the power of them based on the wisdom of crowds? Wouldn’t capping bets at say $1 be better than trying to hunt down cheaters? Seems like they actually are less predictive if you can get more votes with larger amounts of money.
Or taking a longer timeframe: if you think you are a great forecaster but aren't, and are very stubborn, with capped bets you might get to keep trading forever. With uncapped bets you lose all your money and can't trade anymore, leaving the markets to the people who are better than you at forecasting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like you’d get a secondary proxy market popping up overnight. Like domain privacy for degenerates.
That's why you make the regulations like AML regulations, where it's a crime to obfuscate the source of the wager too.