| ▲ | tomtomtom777 2 hours ago |
| This is a nice overview, but please remove the PolyMarket indicator. It is an obscene prediction mechanism as it creates horrible financial incentives to a war situation. Its degenerate effects have been featured here before. [1] Let's not condone "measurements" that are effectively ways for people to gain money on important political decisions, affecting the lives of many people. (1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822 |
|
| ▲ | DaedalusII an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| why dont UK start enforcing the Marine Insurance Act 1745 to combat this or the Life insurance act maybe 1775 this law literally make it illegal to gamble on marine risk that you do not have direct economic interest in |
| |
| ▲ | colechristensen 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Are they? Is there a prediction market available in the UK which allows you to place these bets? They're regulated like gambling there. |
|
|
| ▲ | zeofig 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree polymarket is "bad", but it's also highly relevant and should absolutely be included in this web page. |
| |
|
| ▲ | nodesocket 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| By this logic would you also consider trading OIL (USO) and Palantir a "obscene" market. |
| |
| ▲ | tomtomtom777 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Actually yes. I put my money in things I would like to see shape the future, which I think is what investment should be about: shaping the future. But disregarding this admittedly niche attitude; it's not the same thing. If you're opening bets on the ships being bombed before a certain date, you're opening incentives for people to do so. Although buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives. | | |
| ▲ | trhway 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >you're opening incentives for people to do so how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? I'd even argue that sinking one ship affects say 10 people of the crew who most probable will survive in the warm Gulf waters whereis sinking a company may affect many people life outcomes probably causing a number of indirect deaths. CDS of 2008 would be similar example. >buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives it creates direct incentives to suppress competitors - wind and solar energy for OIL, and whoever Palantir competitors are. Wrt. "Hormuz open" - does the "open" definition includes the new fee Iran would be taking for the strait traverse (something like $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder) | | |
| ▲ | tomtomtom777 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? Yes. That's why it's illegal to short-sell your stocks just before you announce that your company is broke. There are no such regulations when betting on a bomb dropping on a boat. |
| |
| ▲ | nodesocket an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shaping the future for “good” is not investing. That is ESG and if you value capital and capital appreciation ESG has been proven not to be a solid strategy. See also altruistic capitalism with such moral people as Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Trevor Milton and Adam Neumann. Solid list of moral people shaping the future. | | |
| ▲ | tomtomtom777 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Wow. I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to have a completely different mindset. You mean to say it is "proven" not to be a solid strategy as in not maximizing profit? Surely, you acknowledge that funding something is a rather direct way of actively supporting it. It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. If you buy OIL to make money, you are still responsible for the additional investment made in oil, and are still shaping the future, whether you like it or not. | |
| ▲ | sharmajai 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who said investing is _only_ for "capital and capital appreciation"? It can also be for social good. |
|
| |
| ▲ | auntienomen 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem with prediction markets is fundamentally that they're unregulated. Modern equities and futures markets are highly evolved and rather carefully regulated systems. We've spent centuries learning what the failure modes are and how to guard against them. It's never perfect, it's never going to be perfect -- it's fundamentally a voting system -- but in general, we get liquidity and price discovery at a relatively low cost, while avoiding fraudulent and evil behavior like wash trading and criminal profit laundering. These new "prediction markets" have been put in place without any of those hard-earned protections. And surprise, they're rife with dirty trick and dirty money. | | |
| ▲ | nodesocket 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Agree 100% that prediction markets are the wild-wild-west with no insider trading protections, pump and dump, and no oversight. It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis. |
| |
| ▲ | foxes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes | |
| ▲ | Octoth0rpe an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yep | |
| ▲ | mvdtnz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oil futures or any other commodity purchase that doesn't result in the buyer taking actual physical ownership of what they purchase is an obscene gambling market with perverse incentives yes correct. | | |
| ▲ | isubkhankulov an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | How will commodity producers (oil companies, farmers) hedge their risk / stabilize their prices without speculators and their “perverse incentives”? | | |
| ▲ | broken-kebab an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | We will gather special people, very wise, and completely honest. They'll form a committee, and we will call it Gosplan, comrade! | |
| ▲ | DaedalusII an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | banana brains like OP will design a government that doesnt have natural price discovery and we will all end up driving Lada and with unstable prices and hunger |
| |
| ▲ | DaedalusII an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | by this logic investing in SAFEs is obscene gambling with perverse incentives and we should shut down the venture capital industry |
| |
| ▲ | antonvs an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would you not? Unless you literally don't care about damaging our planet and civilization in the interests of your own personal profit. | | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | At this point efficient pricing of energy is a strong motivator for environmental causes. Solar is ridiculously cheaper than fossil fuels and not subject to geopolitical risk. And once you have solar panels you've got energy for decades. Carbon-related environmentalism and greed now go hand in hand. |
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | objectively so |
|
|
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > "obscene" And yet, it is the wisdom of the crowds. The crowds being obscene. Aren't we all constantly hitting re-fresh for updates, and making predictions. The prediction markets are just consolidating that 'desire'. |
| |
| ▲ | tomtomtom777 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, it would be if everyone betting wouldn't have an influence on the outcome. That's "wisdom of the crowds". But what if the people putting money on the Strait being closed are the same that close them? Surely, that's no longer the wisdom of the crowds at play. Just perverse incentives. | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree. Maybe an un-expected outcome. Who could have foreseen that a government/person would actually blatantly start a war, and manipulate bombing raids in order to manipulate a market, without being charged with a crime himself. In sports betting, it seems obvious if a player throws a game. In a war? Surely nobody would do this, right? Who could imagine it. | | |
| ▲ | antonvs an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Who could have foreseen Economists. They even have a term for this, dating back to the late 1800s: "moral hazard". Polymarket creates moral hazard when participants can profit from outcomes they can influence. | |
| ▲ | tomtomtom777 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't have to imagine some giant conspiracy. Fact is, that everyone can make a bet, and there are a lot of people with knowledge and influence in the political decisions made. In sports, at least the outcome is only effected by the sportsmen. Here, who knows which and how many people have inside knowledge and influence that they can use that to their financial advantage? | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah.
I have to agree. My view has changed in last week. I never imagined that markets could be so corrupted by those in power, without some other consequences somehow balancing out. Like being arrested, or removed from office. Forget PolyMarket.
We literally have bets being made on oil futures, directly before a tweet by the president. Openly profiting on direct minute by minute manipulation. Openly corrupt. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Putting bounties on people's heads and public lynchings are the wisdom of crowds and its obscenity in action. | | |
|
