There's an easy way for polymarket to have a nice office in a nice city in USA: legalize it there and have nice enough regulations and incentives for it to move there.

It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore.

But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $15B market is NPR's goal with this article.

▲

soraminazuki 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

While you're at it, let's legalize pig butchering scams too.

"It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore. But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $75B market is NPR's goal with this article."

▲

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

Good on NPR. These markets are a cancer on society and should be outlawed further.

▲

alchemist1e9 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does anyone have a good source that details these negative effects? I’m not doubting they exist, I mean gambling in general has many negative externalities, but I’m just interested in identifying the cancer aspects more specifically.

▲

shermantanktop 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Would you go to a cancer doctor if you knew they were betting on Polymarket as to whether you would do well in your cancer treatment?

Polymarket appears to have people who have both the ability to shape outcomes and anonymously profit on those outcomes.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	cindyllm 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

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

Theres evidence to suggest people in government are using it to front run actions on iran for profit for example. Is this useful to the public to have their lawmakers engage in side bets and dare I even say, game fixing as we see in sports but in the real world with bombs and deaths?

▲

Barrin92 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>but I’m just interested in identifying the cancer aspects more specifically.

the most obvious and maybe most concerning one is military related insider trading. Just two weeks ago a guy was sentenced for using classified information to gamble, which mind you is the literal point of the market but from the perspective of US military security is a disaster. In addition military bets apparently pay out significantly more than regular bets, suggesting more insider trading. The idea isn't too far fetched that someone could push to carry out or botch an operation to cash out on a betting market at which point we're in dystopian novel territory I guess.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/military-insiders-may-be...

▲

sophrosyne42 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have yet to see an argument against them that isn't more than personal disgust

	▲	otterley 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How hard are you looking? "I haven't seen arguments" doesn't mean much if you're not looking for them. You might as well have had a blindfold on. It's as meaningful as saying "I haven't seen arguments as to why Rust eliminates memory safety bugs." Here's an example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230628/ This is another excellent article that discusses some of the problems, and has links to other such articles: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/polymarket-kalshi-bett...

▲

guizadillas 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

why would they do that if the whole business depends on not having regulations?

	▲	sophrosyne42 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which regulations in particular? All businesses rely on governments not choking them into nonexistence by having regulations that harm that business. Regulations are not an amorphus blob. There are other regulations that would also benefit a business to enable its existence, but we would not say (or should not say) that "the whole business relies on having regulations," because that is being intentionally vague about what the regulations in question actually are. The way you phrase it almost implied there is inherently something dangerous or suspect about something that is universal about how regulations can effect businesses.