Polymarket's Rush to Grow Left a Door Wide Open for Fraudsters
wsj.com
wsj.com
"At one point, the processor rejected as fraudulent more than 80% of the deposits it was handling, a rate that far exceeded industry standards of roughly 1%. Polymarket employees quickly raised their concerns with Chief Executive Shayne Coplan, according to people familiar with the events.
The compliance team, those people recalled, was floored by Coplan’s response: Just keep growing and pay a fine if regulators ever find out."
At what point are you a casino and at what point are you just a utility for money laundering, insider betting, scams & fraud?
> Just keep growing and pay a fine if regulators ever find out.
would certainly be interesting to know if he does risk assessment under the table.
so both polymarket onchain and polymarket us have major issues, but separate issues
Lots of especially younger people see unbridled ambition and rule-breaking as a virtue. Everything is about making money and if you're not the one getting it, or worse, you're the person being victimized, you're dumb and weak.
Young people are more open in expressing it (like with Tate), but underlying ideas are not new.
I'd argue it's different today. Social media in particular has convinced a whole generation of people that if you don't have a garage full of supercars by the age of 23, you're a loser, and that there's almost no activity too shameful to engage in publicly in pursuit of wealth.
Like, "losers and suckers"?
How about "Producer Reports" where companies are evaluated on whether they actually produce anything of value first and foremost as a benchmark.
Completely separate from the financial data which is already well-covered elsewhere. Investors are already supposed to get the most out of the money angle.
But for any one product most people are neither consumers of the product nor investors in the company.
These are the vast majority who would benefit from better information on whether a company is worth having around, for everyone in general who is not an avid consumer nor investor.
That would probably be more helpful for "innocent bystanders" who want to better avoid being assimilated by forces they have no interest in but could end up quite costly anyway.
It would be... interesting? (and dangerous?) to be able to meet someone at a party, and have a notification such as "this dude earned a billion dollar by scamming people".
You missed the obvious one: it creates a path for people with insider knowledge to monetize it at the expense of employers, institutions, etc.
The guy using his access to classified information to make a few hundred thousand bucks in a day is not interested in "sharing the truth" for the benefit of society.
Right, and I'd also like to preempt any apologetics trying to cloak it as socially-beneficial "information discovery."
Many of these betting/insider-trading scenarios are structured so that the information only becomes revealed at the same moment it becomes worthless. (In some cases, that's just a return to its default state.) Like the value of knowing the winning numbers from an expired lotto draw.
It’s not inherently stupid - I’d much rather that some lowly analyst sell out an impending stock hit for a few grand than well-positioned insiders soak the market for 10,000x that. There’s obvious moral hazards, though.