| ▲ | seydor 4 hours ago |
| Yep, far worse than cryptocurrency |
|
| ▲ | fnands 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| At least cryptocurrencies had some nice ideas behind them. Just sad they almost immediately got co-opted by swindlers and criminals. |
|
| ▲ | somelamer567 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cryptocurrency itself was designed to enable crime. Why else would one want an end-run around governments and law-enforcement, unless one were a criminal wanting to prey on others risk-free? |
| |
| ▲ | 8-prime 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A statement made from either privilige, ignorance or both. Just because you might agree with the actions and behaviour of your current government enough, that you don't mind them being able to have a hand in your currency, doesn't mean that can't change. | |
| ▲ | PurpleRamen 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not all governments are good, trustworthy or even exist at all. For people in an oppressed or even full out broken society, being this level of criminal is acceptable. But yes, something used to work around bad governments, will also be used against good governments. Every legit tool can be also abused. | |
| ▲ | dalmo3 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > a criminal wanting to prey on others risk-free E.g. a Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks? | |
| ▲ | hollerith 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So, in your mind, making a payment, recieving a payment and holding money in savings are always bad when it goes against any government's law or order? | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > So, in your mind, making a payment, recieving a payment and holding money in savings are always bad when it goes against any government's law or order? That's not how I read GP; "Why would you want to do an end-run around the government when using currency?" is different to, well, whatever it is you are saying (I'm not sure I can decipher it well enough - seems to be "using currency is bad when it goes against laws", but I think that's fine too, so not really sure what your message is - maybe you can clarify?) Using legal tender is not a problem. Using barter (which is what using crypocurrencies boils down to) is also not a problem. Lack of reporting your income to the tax authorities is a problem. Most bartering systems are too small to warrant the attention of tax authorities, but cryptocurrencies facilitate bartering at scale, which does warrant interest. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | littlecranky67 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wait until they ban prediction markets, then they will re-appear, and you will have to use cryptocurrency :) |
| |
| ▲ | zbentley 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’d be surprised if there wasn’t already a huge crypto-only dark market where lots of rich criminals bet huge sums. If you’re in that telegram channel, though, I imagine the threats on your life are a lot more credible than the ones discussed in TFA. | |
| ▲ | input_sh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Polymarket already only accepts cryptocurrencies. :) Kalshi is worse in a sense that it also accepts fiat payments. |
|
|
| ▲ | colesantiago 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| AI is 1000%+ far worse to be fair. Cryptocurrency (although I hate it) you don't have to participate, so no harm done. Prediction Markets you don't have to participate, so no harm done. With AI, you're participating whether you like it or not. Layoffs, Job displacement, etc. There is no opt out here. Once you're replaced with AI, that is it. At least with cryptocurrency and prediction markets you can make money but it's obviously risky. Ultimately with AI it would just push people to cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. |
| |
| ▲ | tasuki 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Prediction Markets you don't have to participate, so no harm done. What if there's a prediction market on your life? Would you say you're still "not participating, so no harm done" ? | |
| ▲ | zbentley 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Prediction Markets you don't have to participate, so no harm done. Did you read the article? It is about a journalist getting death threats from members of a prediction market. | |
| ▲ | UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Dude, stop. | |
| ▲ | mpalmer 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you have a positive defense of betting markets? You're spraying defensive whataboutism all over this thread and lowering the discourse. > Prediction Markets you don't have to participate, so no harm done. Harm: https://www.npr.org/2025/11/13/nx-s1-5605561/college-athlete... Harm: https://militarnyi.com/en/news/in-november-an-isw-analyst-ma... Harm: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/05/prediction-markets-merkley-b... | | |
| ▲ | colesantiago 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why did you send in an article that was completely irrelevant that has nothing to do with prediction markets? Betting markets of all kinds have existed for a long time and haven't been banned. Banning on particular betting market prediction markets altogether and pushing it underground would make things far worse. | | |
| ▲ | zbentley 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Many kinds of betting markets are or were banned all over the world. The sky didn’t fall, and what underground markets existed didn’t lead to huge gang wars or whatever. Given that the article is discussing some of the bad behavior typically associated with dark markets (death threats, extortion, fixing) happening in the light, what makes you think that banning them would make things worse? |
|
|
|
