If the prediction market is for a non-trivial amount, it's likely someone is going to kill you in exchange for the money the prediction market offered them. The prediction market isn't acting as a prophet here, it's acting as a plausibly deniable murder for hire service and you are its victim.

The people "betting against" you dying just paid to have you killed.

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, OOP might have chosen a suboptimal example here. But for general newsworthy events, people aren’t going to be in positions to manually make them happen. And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet.

	▲	gpm 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The prediction markets aren't yet at sufficient scale to purchase a war, you mean. People start wars for money all the time though. If they become of sufficient scale, people will purchase wars on them. There's already lots of examples where they are of sufficient scale, like paying the press secretary to shut up after 64 minutes. Or paying someone to falsify ISWs map of the front line in Ukraine.
	▲	CPLX 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> And no person in a position to start a war would do it to affect a Polymarket bet. Are you fucking kidding? Based just on current events, that is absolutely not a statement you can make without at least trying to prove it. If you do try to prove that you will fail as the idea that people would start wars for profit is as old as wars. Just evaluate the sentence you've just created. How many people exist who have the capability to start wars or influence the start of wars? It's a lot. What else do you know about these people and their motivations?