I would not be surprised if people are murdered at some point to reap the payout of some related bet.
It also incentivizes leaks from insiders, sometimes endangering others. A soldier was charged for betting on a military operation. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-soldier-charged-using-clas...
And of course throwing pro sports, but that's been happening for ages. Sports has always been crooked: eg the Eupolus Scandal from 388 BCE.
‘Hairdryer or lighter?’: French police look at claim of sensor tampering to win weather bets
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/23/hairdryer-or-l...
It's bad enough when such systems fail due to whatever sort of issue, but the last thing aviation needs is people intentionally blowing holes into the swiss cheese security model -.-
"What do you mean, people used to just walk up to planes with their shoes on and a FULL 8-ounce water bottle in hand with barely any physical security?"
It's easier to stop incentivizing people to ruin the commons, vs. trying to strengthen the commons against all possible adversarial behavior.
Have there been multiple separate incidents?
The other side of the coin is that hijackings used to be a frequent and regular occurrence. Now they're not anymore.
And my understanding is that the current theory for MH370 is that the pilot locked out the copilot and then depressurised the cabin.
There are non-fatal cases like Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 where the copilot locked the captain out when we was in the restroom (though loss of life was still a possibility, one of the engines had flamed out and was on emergency fuel).
As with all incidents, there are many factors that lead to them, but in these cases the presence of locked and reinforced cockpit doors contributed to the incident (in malicious cases the fact the door was impenetrable was clearly part of the decision-making, and in accident cases it was obviously an impediment to any positive outcome once the incident occurred).
It's impossible. No matter how good of a job you do, there will _always_ be people out to watch it all burn.
I think solving the socioeconomic, geopolitical, and religious tensions that lead to plane hijackings is a much harder problem to solve than simply putting doors on cockpits and forcing people to do body scans.
Even foreign actors during war time wouldn’t go through the effort of messing with individual temperature sensors.
That would have been perfect.
Polymarket is facilitating bets between people, not bets with the house. Gambling and insurance are both bets with the house.
Yes, there are de minimis exceptions. Your office NCAA pool, for example, is often legal, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about and is also irrelevant to a business facilitating it via 18 U.S.C. § 1955.
https://russpain.com/en/news-3/authorities-consider-legalizi...
>Rarely exceed 25 euros.
Maybe in Christmas, because the weekly play was just about low prizes.
What jurisdiction are we painting with that broad brush? This is far from universally true, even in the US.
A bet is a bet, whether it's against the house or other people it's a bet.
> You aren't allowed to set up a life insurance policy on someone else's life, or a fire insurance policy on someone else's home
This isn't really true. Lots of people take out life insurance on others as a hedge for many reasons, small business partner is one. Same fire insurance, we had a case where someone pledged a building as collateral and we took out separate fire insurance on the building so we'd get paid out immediately.
I'm not sure where this false premise started but alot of people believe it.
This is done because the insurance company wants you to prefer that the covered event doesn’t happen, which avoids some conflicts of interest.
These prediction market events don’t have the usual insurance interests involved.
Yep, we're in full agreement here
Evil, but most everything in real estate is evil.
With an insurance this trick won't work, because the insurance company will notice what you are doing. Polymarket doesn't care.
This has worked well millions of times (and occasionally failed too with people ending in prison or with huge fines). Where I can agree however is that Polymarket makes that much easier.
You can get insurance without the above provisions, but it will cost a lot more. Once in a while someone manages to collect on a claim for loss of their expensive cigars after they smoke them - but this is rare and usually not worth the cost.
This may vary by country, it isn't a subject I'm particularly familiar with, but at least in the UK that isn't true - many, I think most, life insurance policies here do pay out for suicide. There's just a period of years between the start of the policy and when suicide starts to be covered, to prevent people who are planning on killing themselves from being able to take out insurance just before doing so.
if there is evidence that someone took out the policy with the intention of creating a claim then the insurer may treat it as fraud and decline it.
> This is done because the insurance company wants you to prefer that the covered event doesn’t happen
But buying the insurance cancels exactly that. Insurance fraud is a thing.
For example, I have a decently-sized life-insurance policy. If buying insurance "exactly covered that", I would be indifferent to whether I lived or died. But I'm not. And I can't think of a policy-size that would make me so. Money is an imperfect substitute.
Less dramatically, I have really good auto coverage. The car itself is nothing special, and the coverage I have would make me whole (minus a very small deductible) But I am very much not indifferent to replacing the car with money, and it would take way more than the deductible to change my mind on that.
The hassle-value alone would go way over. And hassle-value is usually not insurable.
Insurance fraud is absolutely a thing--but the insurance company still wants you to prefer that the event doesn't happen. That it doesn't work perfectly doesn't really invalidate the point.
You're not allowed to take out life insurance on someone you don't know or have a relationship (business or otherwise) with.
Life insurance on a business partner works. Life insurance on your spouse as well.
Life insurance on the leader of a random country? Unlikely
you dont take out cover on your business partner, the company itself does
It being the driving plot behind Double Indemnity probably started it. I always thought it was true until your comment, too.
If you wanted to correct a misconception, you should provide a better, more complete understanding, not just express frustration about a misconception that doesn't even exist outside of an uncharitable reading.
In this case, that means refining the point to the more accurate model, that you need an insurable interest -- i.e. reason you don't want the event to happen, even knowing you'd get a payout[1]. Your counterexamples only work as such because that exists![2] If you want to fix all the people who don't have your superior understanding, that would have been a great way to help them out.
>I'm not sure where this false premise started but alot of people believe it.
It exists because it's approximately true: you can't get insurance on 99.99999% of buildings in the world because you have no insurable interest in them. And any time someone could correct that false premise, they probably just complain rather than providing the complete understanding -- exactly the choice you just made here.
[1] IMO, this is the natural dividing line between gambling and insurance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13916088
[2] Edit: And in your building collateral example, the policy would prevent you from double dipping -- getting both the building and the full payout.
You can sell your life insurance policy to somebody else. It's a way of getting money to sick people to use while thy are still alive.
To be clear they had explicitly written in the contract from the start that death didn't count. And they paid out the full amount - just not to the same betters they would have if he had left office alive.
Any bum defending these contracts is to me either a shill or way too dumb to understand the concept of incentives.
Oh and there was an Israeli journalist that got life threats because he reported that an Iranian missile struck some place in Israel, and apparently there was a huge bet on it on polymarket.
I would argue that the ratio between "power" and "money to be won" is too big (at least right now) for this to materially matter. No fortune 500 CEO is going to postpone a product launch so they can win $5,000 on polymarket. But some random guy will get his hair dryer to win a socially meaningless weather bet.
It's not discussed often, but the liquidity of these markets is often awful, and you can only win as much as people are willing to take the other side. Which is harder when people know it's easy for insiders (or the outcome decider themselves) to play the other side.
Basically the more socially consequential the outcome you control, the less likely you care about a betting market, and the less the betting market cares about you.
The real winners are people with little or no power to effect outcome, but with insider knowledge. And athletes.
No, but a low paid frontline worker with the ability to throw a last minute wrench into the gears absolutely would.
Usually though people's pay/power directly correlates with how badly they can screw the company if they go (legally) rogue.
But anyone can get a job at XYZ, buy puts, and go and set the factory on fire the next day. Betting markets don't change the fact that you'll be arrested, except that you'll be arrested for a few thousand dollars rather than whatever you can squeeze out of options.
Anyone who can figure out "how to have an accident" can do it. A fire at an aluminum plant last year tanked Ford stock 6%. For a relatively boring stock like Ford, the right options would have moved 1000%+.
They would win a lot more than a trivial amount by taking adverse positions, no? Seems like you're making up your own hypothetical
Think of it like kids betting pennies what subject the teacher will open with the next day. The teacher doesn't care about winning $0.89, but the kids do.
Nobody's making millions betting on things like the weather.
So what's the point of polymarket, then? If at best we get "negligible" "insiderism", how is it that we are supposed to be benefitting from this as a society the way OP and others insist that revealing insider preferences "would"
An example would be the latest presidential election, where professional pollsters at them at almost 50/50, but the prediction markets had trump by a landslide. He went on to win even the popular vote.
The benefit comes to people who don't even participate, and just take notes.
Trump didn't win by a landslide and he barely won the popular vote...
>The benefit comes to people who don't even participate, and just take notes.
Praying someone has an example besides the election, to which it seems to have made absolutely no difference at all
Then there is also the fact that the power of the people determining the outcome is inversely proportional to their care about betting markets.
Put this together and you get "The larger the size of the market, the less the people who can single handily swing it care about doing so".
If you are someone who can command hundreds of thousands of people to bet millions for or against you, you almost certainly lose more than you would gain by gaming it.
Mind you the market also naturally prices in this risk of the one person going rogue and taking them winnings for themselves. You will never find a market for "WarmWash will post nothing for 3 days straight on HN" because no one will take the other side of it.
I have a bot betting on a handful of what I consider (so far) markets that are impossible to cheat (bar UMA shenanigans): nobody has any control over the outcomes, previous knowledge is very limited. It makes some money, but looking at the depth, the volume, and my metrics, even being the fastest 100% of the time without worrying about bankroll, one of them would gimme roughly $1-2k a week.
You're basically arguing that there aren't enough fools to go around, when we're talking about gambling enterprises.
Welcome to the grift economy, take a number.
If I find out my friends placed bets on whether I'll say X tomorrow, I'm not obligated to act as if I didn't know.
This isn't share price manipulation.
I'm pretty sure this is the same as match or race fixing to get the payout from bets made.
So we're in agreement that if he is not profiting from saying it, then it's OK, correct?
> I'm pretty sure this is the same as match or race fixing to get the payout from bets made.
If my friends make a bet that I will/won't do something, and I choose to make one side win, that is not match fixing. I'm sure match fixing only applies to regulated games. If people want to make bets on unregulated games, and lose their shirt, they have only themselves to blame.
Here's a paper on match fixing:
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol56/iss4/9/
For something to be match fixing, the government has to recognize the activity as a sport, and most state laws require the person to benefit from the fixing, which the CEO here is not and/or they require "rule tampering" - there was no rule broken here.
There has to be some motivation for people to do such random things, and even if not directly illegal, they do smell rather fishy and unethical.
T hen again crypto isn't known for its bastion of legality and morality, therefore I would assume there are some deals going on in the background which are probably illegal, and if not that then unethical - not that they would care about that.
There needs to be evidence of such a thing, no?
> There has to be some motivation for people to do such random things, and even if not directly illegal, they do smell rather fishy and unethical.
I have motivation. If people are placing stupid bets on me, I sure as heck want them to suffer for it.
I'm sure some people view a CEO doing this as unethical, but I fully support it. Whoever lost money on that bet had it coming.
Of course, my preference is both sides losing money, but we can't have everything.
Speaking of ethics: There is a reason why betting and gambling are categorized under "vices". If you make any bet on things out of your control, the questionable ethics begins with you. Don't put it on a third party who was not involved in crafting the bet.
I believe in some jurisdictions, private bets are not legally enforceable (i.e. if I make a bet with you and lose, it is my legal right to refuse to pay). There's a good reason for that!
you might need to take your imagination and critical thinking out for a spin if you can't see where this leads.
There's plenty of people able to influence events to whom these barely liquid bets can still amount to huge pay offs.
That includes many CEOs whose compensation is tied to stock performance.
Single moms historically don't have tons of extra money, and Trump was ostensibly a billionaire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bom...
Its a small step from betting on ships sinking to making sure they go down.
In 2017 someone tried to bomb the bus of the BVB soccer club, after he bought puts options on the BVB stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bom...
What you describe (profiting from creating havoc by some "short" bet) is indeed problematic and is regulated.
This is also one more reason why trading should not be unconditionally anonymous. Another reason: proper trading venues have rules against "squeezing", namely that no entity may hold more than some threshold ratio of the open interest. That's obviously impossible to enforce with anonymous markets.
[1] Tradings allows individuals to time-shift consumption, it funds productive enterprises, it incentivises convergence of market price with fundamental value, which in turn is what enables efficient investment allocation, and it allows the emergence of an economy-wide equilibrium of savings and investments. Note though that all of these functions might well be fulfilled by having, say, one minute of trading a day.
This happens on the stock market on a scale 100x larger than Polymarket.
c.f. manipulated earnings reports, taco trades, strait of hummus nonsense
How does the same line of argument not also suggest that stock markets be prohibited?
Polymarket is quite tame in comparison, in my opinion.
Do you really think that there are no people, who have bet on the price of something in one direction or the other, who enact real world consequences on people or other entities in order to ensure their bet? This is par for the course.
How do I cause someone to die using Kalshi or Polymarket, specifically, also without being caught? Didn't they catch someone that had pre-knowledge of the Venezuela campaign?
(I'm not asking because I want to do this, I'm asking because it's not clear to me how this is realistically possible.) Also, given that you can't just create a market on either platform, it's not like I can just say "XXX has 3 months to live".
If a criminal wants to make money on crime, they have better ways to do it than put 10k of their own money to make 50k by killing someone.
I just don't get this whole argument. If you're a contract killer, why put yourself and the contractee up in the feds sights?
Assuming you get away with the murder, guessing that's not the part you're asking about, a concrete example: https://polymarket.com/event/next-french-presidential-electi..., bunch of people on that list, surely many of them are like the typical European politician, mostly without assassination protection most of the time. Place a "No" bet on one of them, then hire someone to assassinate, and Polymarket indirectly drove someone to murder another person, as they could profit from it.
As a contract killer, I don't think you'd put yourself or your client more up in the fed sights than without Polymarket, it'd just look like another bet.
This is the same reason it is generally illegal to make public statements lamenting that someone hasn't killed a person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
I don't know if a contract is a good way, but it gives some deniability.
Legislation by who is willing to "donate" the most; law of the jungle capitalism.
You can also follow people. Tax fraud is how a lot of criminals are caught - we don't know what you did but we can prove you didn't get the money legally and that is enough.
These markets decentralise that information asymmetry.
Thanks, stranger!
Let's not pretend that Spain of all places is caring about horribly destructive psuedo-gambling.
Banning "unregulated gambling" is just pressure to make sure that the Spanish gambling racket stays intact for the bookies already at the top.
Is this intended to imply that Spain has particularly high levels of sports betting, or issues with gambling? All the stats I can see suggest the opposite, and there's already plenty of tight restrictions on local gambling businesses (sports sponsorship ban, welcome bonus ban, almost no public advertising, etc). At a quick google, it looks like the 'Spanish gambling racket' for sports is tiny, gambling problem stats far lower than UK/France/Italy, and most gambling that does happen is the lotteries etc instead, which has its sins, but is a very different beast.
Is there something specific you're getting at?
Not a fan of lottery myself, but at least it's just some random numbers drawn from a drum. There is hardly any dark pattern or illegal incentive there. It is just you against Thomas Bayes.
La Quiniela, a lottery based on soccer matches' results. Every middle aged man filled some weekly forms (win for locals/draw/win for foreigners) as if it was a religion. If you matched 14 from 15 results (much better with 15), you could get a big prize. Also, Jai Alai matches on the North of Spain had huge bets on results too.
Younger millenials and Gen-Zers will just play on RETA which is kinda the same as La Quiniela but online.
I feel like this might be a net negative from the pure speed and access in which you can lose money online vs real life, but idk.
I've played a couple of times solo and in group but never sticked to me.
No related to the point, but what it did stick to me for one season was La Liga Fantástica from Marca ( a fantasy league on paper) when I was a child, because it had the data component, you had a budget to pick players etc, This was before we had internet broadly, if I remember correctly the paper would publish huge lists with the teams ranking or the players stats. But what I do remember was some of my best players like Zalazar :D
I would replace them with https://manifold.markets/ or maybe heavily regulate them. they do have practical utility in forecasting
> Play money means it's much easier for anyone anywhere in the world to get started and try out forecasting without any risk. It also means there's more freedom to create and bet on any type of question.
Their investors/lawyers probably did not want to back the risk using real currency adds.
The astute observer might say "ah but what about crypto gambling sites like Stake?". This problem isn't as intractable as crypto bros might have you believe. You simply issue arrest warrants for people who allow your citizens to gamble in violation of your local laws and you threaten any bank, brokerage or financial institution that allows them to convert their crypto in fiat currency. This is fairly easily covered by KYC/AML regimes alreaqdy. It won't be perfect. It doesn't have to be. As soon as someone can't be an open billionaire by selling crypto gambling without fear of being extradited to the US if they travel internationally, the shine disappears real quick.
Sadly, from my point of view, you're right that right now going after the on/off crypto ramps would be enough to dissuade most people from using crypto gambling sites. I hope for a more educated populace that can bypass these laws and engage in whatever consensual activities they want to, as long as they're not directly harming anyone.
And don't forget about the kids and what possibly could happen maybe someday!
- incentivize harmful acts - create manipulation risks - are "contrary to the public interest"
So, all these contracts on the topics of US attacks, sports, whether California will burn due to fires, openly violate it.
But CFTC's head has publicly stated that they won't act on them.
Do you think regulation of all possible categories of people who could behave adversely to influence prediction markets would be preferable to just regulating the market itself?
"Prediction market" ads running constantly on both sports channels/websites like ESPN. Shortly followed by mainstream cable news like CNN featuring Polymarket stats as a routine part of their horserace polling coverage. Gambling is now an omnipresent temptation for anyone even casually interested in following sports/political news.
And now millions of young men who previously would have had to seek out niche illegal venues to gamble have several dozen different apps on their phone offering to light their disposable income on fire by clicking a couple buttons every paycheck.
Yup, totally nuanced comment coming from a completely sane person since "central planning regulatory hell" and "laissez faire economy without laws" are the two only options we have here, good job carrying the conversation forward with curious and interesting comments.
Sports betting places on the other hand have multiplied like fungi in the last two decades, unfortunately.
You're probably talking about the big Vegas style entire-hotel casino that aren't so popular in Europe anyway outside a niche crowd. The average lower class Spanish person frequents these "sports bars" heavily
Allowing prediction markets to overlap with criminal incentives is a platform TOS and moderation problem; not a prediction market or betting exchange problem.
What in the fuck are you talking about? This is a public policy problem and has been literally for 3,000 years.
It's one of the oldest and most pervasive public policy problems that has spanned nearly every culture that's existed since there was culture.