| ▲ | beaviskhan 7 hours ago |
| You'd have to be spectacularly stupid to bet on these kinds of things without having insider knowledge, because you ought to know good and damn well by now that the people with insider knowledge are DEFINITELY betting on them. |
|
| ▲ | janalsncm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This was my thought. If these markets continue allowing insiders, it’ll drive all of the cash from regular people away. So there will be way less money for insiders to win even if they are allowed. So the perception of insiders is pretty bad for prediction markets as a business imo. The sooner they knock off the rhetoric about the “theory” behind prediction markets and start thinking about it like a business, the sooner they will take insiders seriously. |
| |
| ▲ | a2128 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the market could adapt if regular people left. Insider trading would become multilayered and complex. Insiders would scheme against lower-level insiders; decisionmakers would try to trick insiders into thinking that one thing will happen before doing the complete opposite thing. The world would become more erratic and unpredictable, even insiders wouldn't know what is going on. Although Polymarket is currently spending a lot of money trying to market itself to working-class regular people to get hooked and scam their paychecks out of[0] [0] https://nypost.com/2026/02/12/us-news/nyc-gets-its-first-fre... | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, the thing is, insiders will disagree. Nobody has a crystal ball to predict the future perfectly. Military operations go awry. Countries react in unexpected ways. Leaders change their minds. And as a potential event gets closer, insider information changes. Different insiders have different sets of partial knowledge. You don't even need scheming and tricking. Just regular reality is already complicated enough. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If these markets continue allowing insiders What are the chances of large bets being made by anyone who isn’t an insider? |
|
|
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even if you are not "betting" similar trades are happening in the stock market as well. Large movements in oil futures shortly before policy changes are announced. |
| |
| ▲ | janalsncm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Insider trading is at least regulated in the stock market, albeit imperfectly. Imagine how much worse it would be if C-levels could just short their own stock during a board meeting. No one without insider knowledge would touch it. | | |
| ▲ | troyastorino 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Matt Levine often says something like "insider trading is not about fairness, it's about theft." The problem isn't that it's less fair to some stock traders than others, and that stock trading should be some form of perfect gambling where everyone has an equal chance of success. Stock trading is inherently about exploiting information asymmetries — that is what all "non-insiders" are trying to do. But insider trading is wrong because it's effectively stealing confidential information from the company & shareholders, which is in violation of & conflict with the fiduciary responsibility that board members, executives, and employees generally have towards shareholders. Conceptually, I think that is the right analogy to think about. Prediction markets "want" to be a more accurate source of information, just like stock markets, so from that lens "getting" information to be more accurate is good. When government officials are placing bets on prediction markets, though, it's a massive violation of operational security, and leaking confidential information. They probably think that they are acting anonymously, but it creates so many opportunities for unfriendly state actors to get information, especially if people do it consistently. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | stubish 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A bet against an event is win/win if you want that event to occur. If you are a country that wanted the US to strike Iran, placing a large number of bets that they won't either gets you what you want or earns you money. It is one reason why you can't bet on someone being murdered, as it creates a deniable market to crowd source assassination. Strange that you can crowd source war, but not assassination. |
|
| ▲ | strulovich 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You also have to be quite stupid to do it with insider knowledge. A bunch of them have been caught in Israel. Being indicted for treason and treason like charges sounds worse than the SEC coming after you. |
|
| ▲ | agumonkey 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| considering the scale involved, and the OSINT trend, is it possible that people could monitor and correlate stuff like airplane, or us navy activity to deduce when to enter ? |
| |
| ▲ | nathancahill 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I saw a tweet about a trader placing an oil bet when they saw two military aircraft turn around on their way to Iran, via transponder. I believe before the deal was announced. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And this is the whole point. Prediction markets are supposed to be providing the most accurate predictions. The most accurate predictions come from insider information. Poeple complaining about insider trading on prediction markets seem to be missing the point. They're supposed to have insider trading. That's the whole idea. |
|
| ▲ | stefan_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you buy oil or products made with it? Then sorry, you made a bet, and in fact you were just ripped off by your own government for the third time in a row. This is not a "crypto prediction market" problem. |
|
| ▲ | bluecalm 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same goes for sport betting and yet here we are.
People like to bet. They willingly bet on things they have guaranteed disadvantage on (casino games like roulette, slots etc.).
People also drink pure poison (alcohol), smoke pure poison (cigarettes) and engage in brain dead activities like speeding and street racing. Gambling should be judged as any other vice - people get something out of it (rush, hope, whatever) not by rational money allocation standards. |
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| couldn't you somehow in theory track the order book to if and when insiders are betting and then copy the trade? |
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not knowing who are the insiders and who is the dumb flow is like the fundamental problem of hft | | |
| ▲ | iknowSFR 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can trade on non-public information if you obtain that information unintentionally. Now you have to be able to prove it’s unintentional if the question came up. A real experience example of this is if you work in an office building and your neighboring company, a public company, is being raided by the FBI. Can you use that information to take a position in the market? Yes, according to multiple attorneys we spoke with. I bring this up because we assume the trading is coming from insiders but I wonder if the parties behind this have baked in a layer similar to my story above. To close this back to your comment, and I don’t have an answer here: is knowing who the insiders are and acting on that a crime? If you did know and didn’t report them, are you breaking a law? Or worse, you reported it to the deaf ears of a regulator that are focused elsewhere or are under resourced to respond now? | | |
| ▲ | huorricannes 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | intentionally/unintentionally is not relevant. it's legal to follow FBI cars and see who they raid so as to make trades. you could even have a hedge fund specialized on this. it's called alternative data you can even be a regular employer of a public company and trade based on information sent on internal emails. the only thing illegal is to be a designated insider - typically a restricted group of people with access to sensitive information | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > you can even be a regular employer of a public company and trade based on information sent on internal emails You absolutely cannot. | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | "cannot" here meaning it's likely to be prosecuted, not that you cannot. You absolutely can. | | |
| ▲ | anonymars 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This interpretation is incredibly unlikely. The first and third paragraphs discuss legality, but the middle one was merely talking about likelihood of prosecution? Even then it would be inaccurate: the regulators are not too stupid to put two and two together that you work for a company and got incredibly lucky with your trade | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be clear, I was responding about trading on internal communications, not specifically a raid. The practice of using internal communication to guide trading runs contrary to most company policies. I happen to have worked at a company where this kind of practice was both acknowledged and openly discussed. It was a strange place. > the regulators are not too stupid to put two and two together that you work for a company and got incredibly lucky with your trade You’re implying some specific combination of factors, but it’s not clear what you mean. What qualifies as "timing"? Around earnings, when trading volume is highest or just around some event? And what exactly counts as "lucky"? Why would regulators scrutinize a sub-$25k purchase of my own company’s stock? That concern feels overstated. Granted, I’m not a lawyer. In practice I can place a trade at any time. If someone is routinely making $20k–$30k transactions, that alone is unlikely to trigger scrutiny. The claim that you "absolutely cannot do this" is simply incorrect. I stand by that. | | |
| ▲ | anonymars 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Looks like you're one of today's lucky 10,000* to learn that insider trading is very much illegal! Here's a few examples: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml Some further advice on the matter: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-12/the-10-la... 10 Laws of Insider Trading 1. Don’t do it. 2. Don’t do it by buying short-dated out-of-the-money call options on merger targets. 3. Don’t text or email about it. 4. Don’t do it in your mother’s account. 5. Don’t do it by planting bombs at a company and shorting its stock. 6. Don’t do it while employed at the Securities and Exchange Commission. 7. Don’t Google “how to insider trade without getting caught” before doing it. 8. If you didn’t insider trade, don’t forget and accidentally confess to insider trading. 9. If you are going to insider trade, do it in a company that is far away from a Securities and Exchange Commission office. Like, physically. 10. If you are already under a federal ethics investigation about your ownership or promotion of a stock, don’t insider trade that stock. * https://m.xkcd.com/1053/ | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How is there enough volume to cover the other side of the bet with these minutes-before trades? | | |
| ▲ | andrepd 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The oil market is, to put it mildly, fucking huge | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > oil market is, to put it mildly, fucking huge Sure. But these aren't trades in "the oil market." They're bets on Polymarket and a specific oil-futures exchange. | |
| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For sure, the real trading markets are huge. I mean the betting platforms. | | |
| ▲ | huorricannes 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | the betting markets offset positions with the real markets. it's all connected | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > betting markets offset positions with the real markets Need a strong source for this. The size (and regulatory) disconnect between the two would seem to make making markets in both a bit silly. |
|
| |
| ▲ | OutOfHere 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you implying that there is arbitrage between the prediction market and the real market? Until now we were assuming that the prediction market is self-contained, with its other side staying within the confines of the prediction market. | | |
| ▲ | huorricannes 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | the other side can and many times is an arbitrageour which has positions in both the prediction market and the real market |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cout 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In theory that is part of what was supposed to have been solved by CAT. | | | |
| ▲ | paulpauper 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | insiders would presumably be bigger trades that show high conviction about improbable events. An insider would wait until the last minute to take advantage of low prices of a market close to expiration. | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For prediction markets you can find out who the insiders are for different categories over time, see for example: https://x.com/peterjliu/status/2024901585806225723 But there is still the problem of knowing which new trades the insiders made before the bet is settled (maybe solved by being an insider of the prediction market), and also since prediction markets need money on both sides (you are betting against other people, not the 'house') when the insiders make their buy they probably eat up most of or all of the action on the other side. |
|
|
| ▲ | aaron695 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | socalgal2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Apparently, according to you, lots of people are spectularly stupid because the only way you make money in a prediction market is for someone to bet on the opposing view point. |
| |
| ▲ | jagged-chisel 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And how else would one make money in a prediction market? The winner isn't paid from the ether; money doesn't just materialize to pay the winner. |
|