This is becoming the kind of "VC platform for online war investments". You: 1. Plan 2. Bet 3. Invest money upfront 4. Execute 5. Redeem your profits

▲

onlyrealcuzzo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Giving people an easy way to profit (i.e. incentive) to use either direct political power or indirect power via bribes is going to have massive consequences on corruption.

We've made profiting off of corruption substantially easier. Anyone who thinks that isn't going to increase corruption is a moron.

Anyone who thinks having more corruption is a good thing is also a moron.

▲

maxerickson 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is there an infinite supply of fools money? There sort of has to be if it's clear that the outcomes are being manipulated by participants in the bets.

I guess people do walk into casinos and play games that are legally controlled to have outcomes favoring the casino.

▲

eru 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Traditional financial markets already give people really big incentives to cause all kinds of mischief. Eg buy a few puts, then publish some made up bad news about the company and profit.

Somehow that doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in practice.

	▲	onlyrealcuzzo 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't care if someone tanks MSFT stock artificially or deservedly. I do care if someone pays the president of Cuba $300k to launch a rocket at a skyscraper in Miami to start a war so they can make $1M. If you're invested in MSFT, you signed up to be some part of a casino. If you just live in the real world, you ideally did not sign up for infinite corruption that actually impacts your life just because someone wants to bribe politicians to get an ROI.

▲

echelon 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It's also going to lead to assassination markets, either directly or indirectly.

> "Johnny CEO will be alive in 2027"

That might be banned from platforms (though not illegal), but this isn't:

> "Jonny CEO is the primary reason ComanyAbc stock is so overheated. CompanyAbc stock will close above X market cap on December 31, 2027."

That is an indirect proxy for assassination.

There are multiple things that could happen here:

- Assassin(s) place bets for outcome favored by assassination, then assassinate.

- Rival(s) place bets for outcome that do not favor assassination to either claim lack of responsibility or to attract bad outcomes. They might publicly announce it, then quietly work on implementing the outcome or let it arise naturally to take the other side of the bet.

I can think of a number of CEOs, politicians, and world leaders where this would put them in the crosshairs and make market participants very wealthy.

Even the "X candidate wins Y election" outcomes are subject to this.

▲

Esophagus4 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

> That might be banned from platforms (though not illegal)

They are currently trying to fix this: https://www.hickenlooper.senate.gov/press_releases/hickenloo...

	▲	bdangubic 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		chances of that passing are roughly in-line with chances of passing a bill to prevent our congressmen and senators from insider trading (you can also bet this as well :) )

▲

azan_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could you explain what do you mean? What's the plan and execution here? Planning and executing invasion? If so, there are much better markets than polymarket for making such bets.

	▲	ffsm8 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I understood the argument like this: If there is a bet going that a war doesn't start, and you're able to start said war... Then everyone betting on the war not starting is effectively providing venture capital funds for you to start that war. So if eg. 20 mil is bet on it not starting, the actor holding the proverbial trigger only needs to "invest" sufficient funds to drain the bet and then capitalize on it by pulling the trigger, everyone being against it would've effectively invested into the war The analogy breaks apart at VC, because they're expecting payout after successful funding, which this doesn't provide. I think it's more like Kickstarter/crowdfunding for wars. Just as fucked up though (The "start a war" setting I'm using here is just to illustrate the point. There are a lot more granular bets going on like (place) will be contested etc, effectively creating money pools for offensives)

▲

PowerElectronix 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Now, can you find enough liquidity in the market to turn a profit? Can you find it before it becomes aparent something is off in the bet?

	▲	daveguy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's a 0-1 bet that resolves one way or the other. If you were able to place the bet, the liquidity is there. But, yeah, if you can't make the bet in the first place without significantly pushing the market then you won't make as much. Prediction markets should not be legal.

▲

Throaway199999 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

honestly the profits aren't big enough when you can just go into business if you have that kind of influence

	▲	jayd16 39 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Corruption is surprisingly cheap. That doesn't mean we should ignore or allow it.
	▲	bendtb 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I would also argue that for a bet on war involving the United States, Middle East, Russia or China oil products are a better bet - and it is the world's second most liquid market after forex markets.