Since it is a rule of the game that the predictor is infallible, anyone with $500,000 would take that
However, I think someone could resuscitate the original intent of the paradox by having the Predictor's actions also hinge on whether or not it predicts that you would make such a bet, and leave box B empty if it does predict that. Essentially defining itself to be correct in the situation where, without this addendum, it would have been incorrect and you would have won the bet.
I think you are intent upon maintaining the paradox, whereas I was just pointing out a loophole that allows a better outcome without resolving it. Gordian knot and all.
You have changed the definition of the paradox. Both can be valuable avenues of thought. I tend to view paradoxes as learning opportunities or a way to practice critical and logical thinking skills. Both of us have achieved that, so yay, but there's definitely not a single way to approach a paradox when presented with one.