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

Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#131

Post by eru »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #86
eru wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional financial markets already give people really big incentives to cause all kinds of mischief. Eg buy a few puts, then publish some made up bad news about the company and profit. Somehow that doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in practice.

I don't care if someone tanks MSFT stock artificially or deservedly. I do care if someone pays the president of Cuba $300k to launch a rocket at a skyscraper in Miami to start a war so they can make $1M. If you're invested in MSFT, you signed up to be some part of a casino. If you just live in the real world, you ideally did not sign up for infinite corruption that actually impacts your life just because someone want…

> I do care if someone pays the president of Cuba $300k to launch a rocket at a skyscraper in Miami to start a war so they can make $1M.

Something is very wrong, if Cuba is so easily bought.

Btw, if that were so easy, why would counterparties even trade with the better at these prices? (And why wouldn't they also spend money influencing the president of Cuba?)

And: a war with Cuba with seriously dent share prices. So you can already do the bet you suggest by shorting stocks or buying put options.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#132

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

potsandpans wrote: post #128
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? “yes…and?” is a weak response to journalism intended to shine a light on something that causes moral outrage, especially given that “moral outrage” is justified on a highly subjective basis.

> This somehow strengthens the argument of the poster you’re replying to? Is that a question or a statement?

Using a question mark in such a statement is a rhetorical device to indicate an implicit question, such as “did you intend to write a comment that sounded like an argument, yet only strengthened the argument of the comment you were responding to.” Conversationally, humans usually inflect the end of the sentence to indicate such uncertainty. Have you had a conversation with a human before?

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#133

Post by Lapsa »

wutwutwat wrote: post #81
hank2000 wrote: post #60

Imagine a bunch of people are tortured, removed from their homes, are killed… and you get paid? Are you cheering for it because you’re getting paid? I can’t imagine wanting to be cheering on death and destruction.

> Imagine a bunch of people are tortured, removed from their homes, are killed… and you get paid? This is what every military supplier does. What every soldier. What every person holding stock in the military supplier's company, every person shorting oil shares, etc. Gambling on war and death is disgusting. Sadly, people profiting from those things is nothing new. That does not make it ok though. https://www.youtube.…

more like longing oil shares

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#134

Post by pocksuppet »

948382828528 wrote: post #33
kodegod69 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure keep saying that to yourself. All of you sound so damn sure when speaking about socialism. Like the first nation to pierce the firmament of human fabric wasn't a socialist one. And that the union wasn't making great strides in technology.

[dead]

Agree, shareholder. 1400 million dead are a small price to pay for our capitalist utopia.

We just need one more chance.

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#135

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #101
nunez wrote: post #43

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-... People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself. > Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the death of political leaders, over court cases, or between…

"Not a new phenomenon!" True, but I cannot find anything in the article that suggests such betting is a "new" phenomenon Often unclear to me what is the point behind the common "this is not new" HN reply when the submission makes no explicit or implicit claims that the subject matter is "new", or that being "new" is significant IMHO, the "this is not new" replies need further elaboration to clarify the point being ma…

It could be that these "this is not new" HN replies are not responding to the submission, its author or its subject matter but are instead focused on HN thread readers and other HN commenters and what those readers might think or how those commenters might react

If there is a submission or a comment that makes a claim such as "this is unprecedented", then a "this is not new" reply, preferably with supporting evidence, makes sense

But that's not what's going on here

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#136

Post by Chrisszz »

echelon wrote: post #83
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving people an easy way to profit (i.e. incentive) to use either direct political power or indirect power via bribes is going to have massive consequences on corruption. We've made profiting off of corruption substantially easier. Anyone who thinks that isn't going to increase corruption is a moron. Anyone who thinks having more corruption is a good thing is also a moron.

It's also going to lead to assassination markets, either directly or indirectly. > "Johnny CEO will be alive in 2027" That might be banned from platforms (though not illegal), but this isn't: > "Jonny CEO is the primary reason ComanyAbc stock is so overheated. CompanyAbc stock will close above X market cap on December 31, 2027." That is an indirect proxy for assassination. There are multiple things that could happen…

True.. I didn't think about that lol

Re: Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

#137

Post by daft_pink »

Planktonne wrote: post #114
daft_pink wrote: post #113

Just want to reiterate that prediction markets are beneficial, because they are the most accurate way to provide us with a dynamic mechanism to predict future outcomes from complicated systems. As was put forth in James Suroweicki’s the Wisdom of Crowds, prediction markets provide predictions that tend to be more accurate than any expert, team of experts, etc. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% accurate, but it tends to be…

I'm not sure 'have a benefit' maps directly to 'are beneficial'. You also have to consider the downsides, such as people with influence deliberately causing X event to happen (e.g. a war) so that they can profit. I'm not sure the increased predictability is worth the increased instability.

I think this is a sensible argument.

I don't agree with the other commenters about the "insider" trading. I think since the point is to get information more quickly, I don't really care whether it's insider or not, but I do think it's a bad idea for someone to cause certain improbable events by betting on them.

Post reply on HN