Rhetorical question: why do non-insiders still bet in these markets? Surely, after all of the focus on insiders, people will begin to realize that betting without insider knowledge is a fool’s gambit..
It’s a way to pay for valuable information
War prediction markets are a national-security threat
131–140 of 162 posts
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
The White House has admitted that Israel had actionable intelligence that several of the Iranian political leadership were having a physical meeting together and they decided to attack to decapitate the government. The US decided to attack Iranian capabilities preemptively to reduce the inevitable response to US military, embassies, and allies in the region.
It’s bad enough the politicians lied when they campaigned on no more wars in the Middle East, they don’t need to insult our intelligence with these moronic cover stories. If they didn’t want Israel dragging the US into wars they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them.
> they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them
Deciding not to betray your ally isn't a "moronic cover story".
If you're going to portray that as the alternative you actually make their actions sound more reasonable.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
You couldn’t design a better system for incentivizing leaks if you were trying. Hell, the CEO literally said as much. Not sure how you can conclude the markets aren’t the problem.
Yeah I had to reread that part... I was like, no way the CEO of Polymarket publicly said on record that it incentivizes leaks. Had to check to make sure I wasn't on the onion.
He was talking about companies at that part of the interview, and getting company info leaked to the market is generally a good thing.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#134> The day before, 150 users bet at least $1,000 that the United States would strike Iran within the next 24 hours Yeah, I heard the same thing at the same time from several friends. And I'm not talking top brass, so it must have been pretty obvious at that point.
It really wasn't rocket science. Even I packed my go bag and loaded up the car on Friday night, and I have no information they don't share on the news. (I live in Israel, and when the first siren woke me at ~8 on Saturday morning I jumped in the car and evacuated to a family member who lives in a building with a bomb shelter)
I could've been wrong, but it was a reasonable guess. The local Israeli news anchors were in the newsroom broadcasting within minutes of the attack going public, I guess they slept in the office with their clothes on too.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#135Apologies for going in the weeds on a general concept that is 100% valid, but it expends a couple of paragraphs on this so I must- "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not, it’s safe to assume, a devoted Polymarket user." We have to assume that he made the choice to be a martyr. He was in his own home at the same time that the entire world could see the enormous buildup of resources the US was placing in the area. Trump did e…
> We have to assume that he made the choice to be a martyr I don't think we have to assume that. He could have thought the military build up was a bluff. He could have trusted in Iran's defenses to allow him time to find safety. He could have thought his assassination attempt on Trump would pan out. There are a million other could-have's that we could invent, and I don't think "him choosing to be a martyr" is any mor…
Once the odds of a powerful strike get over 10 or 20 percent, staying in your house is choosing martyrdom over safety. I don't know what the actual best prediction would have been, but I don't think those million could-haves add up to a very big percentage that would overturn the above analysis.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s bad enough the politicians lied when they campaigned on no more wars in the Middle East, they don’t need to insult our intelligence with these moronic cover stories. If they didn’t want Israel dragging the US into wars they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them.
> they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them Deciding not to betray your ally isn't a "moronic cover story". If you're going to portray that as the alternative you actually make their actions sound more reasonable.
If your “ally” is, as this story goes, forcing you into a war against your will, protecting your own citizens and troops takes priority over any favors you might owe these “friends.”
Of course if you actually wanted to start this war, and wanted a low effort cover story, you’d…do exactly this kind of lazy, low effort lie.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them Deciding not to betray your ally isn't a "moronic cover story". If you're going to portray that as the alternative you actually make their actions sound more reasonable.
If your “ally” is, as this story goes, forcing you into a war against your will, protecting your own citizens and troops takes priority over any favors you might owe these “friends.” Of course if you actually wanted to start this war, and wanted a low effort cover story, you’d…do exactly this kind of lazy, low effort lie.
What are you even calling a lie? (not the campaign promises, the recent statements) The claims are something like this, right?: 1. Israel decided to attack 2. The US thought about how that would play out. 3. The US decided to attack too.
Which of those claims is untrue? Is there a claim I missed?
"The US could have snitched to Iran" does not contradict any of those claims.
Also I'm not convinced that warning Iran would have made things much safer for US troops. And you can say what you want about what the US priorities should be, but that's a whole different discussion.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#138The author spends the first paragraph of the article talking about how n number of users bet x on a specific outcome and they won. They fail to account for the many others who bet on a different outcome and lost. I watched polymarket like a hawk for weeks before the attack and am incredibly familiar with the numbers. Fact is, there were no indications on Polymarket that an attack was happening that morning. The chanc…
Right, the probability pre-attack never broke even 30%, which was basically in line with the most prominent opinions. The market consensus had been for a long time that there would be an attack by this summer or the end of the year, but probably not near-term. There will always be some bull traders who buy just before a big move in the market, that's no proof of insider trading.
> that's no proof of insider trading.
It isn't. But also the whole point of prediction markets is to allow insiders to profit in return for providing valuable information.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your “ally” is, as this story goes, forcing you into a war against your will, protecting your own citizens and troops takes priority over any favors you might owe these “friends.” Of course if you actually wanted to start this war, and wanted a low effort cover story, you’d…do exactly this kind of lazy, low effort lie.
What are you even calling a lie? (not the campaign promises, the recent statements) The claims are something like this, right?: 1. Israel decided to attack 2. The US thought about how that would play out. 3. The US decided to attack too. Which of those claims is untrue? Is there a claim I missed? "The US could have snitched to Iran" does not contradict any of those claims. Also I'm not convinced that warning Iran wou…
The US claim is that their attack is a sort of pre-emptive self-defense because Israel forced their hand. That’s what I’m calling a lie: Israel could’ve been dissuaded, trivially, if the US didn’t want to start a war with Iran.
Re: War prediction markets are a national-security threat
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you even calling a lie? (not the campaign promises, the recent statements) The claims are something like this, right?: 1. Israel decided to attack 2. The US thought about how that would play out. 3. The US decided to attack too. Which of those claims is untrue? Is there a claim I missed? "The US could have snitched to Iran" does not contradict any of those claims. Also I'm not convinced that warning Iran wou…
The US claim is that their attack is a sort of pre-emptive self-defense because Israel forced their hand. That’s what I’m calling a lie: Israel could’ve been dissuaded, trivially , if the US didn’t want to start a war with Iran.
Their hand was forced, and it was "a sort of pre-emptive self-defense". I'm still not seeing the lie. You think they should have done something different, but "should have done something different" is a completely different criticism.
And what you think is "trivial" is far from certain.