| ▲ | nostrademons 6 hours ago |
| That's sort of the point of prediction markets: they surface insider information by allowing people to profit off of it. The benefit is to people watching the prices, who can then use that information to make better decisions ahead of the answer being revealed to the public. It's not necessarily to market participants, who need to be aware of who else is trading the market and have a credible reason to believe they have better information. |
|
| ▲ | awongh 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The unfortunate thing is that, while their academic position sounds plausible on paper, just like with most crypto things it's just a money grab. How many crypto people (with legitimate backgrounds just like the founders of Polymarket and Kalshi) stood up and said big things about freedom and the unbanked etc., turns out they were literally just scamming people- there are so many examples besides FTX. Letting people bet on any random thing is not at all related to this "price everything" theory. If that was their real goal they wouldn't behave so much like a normal sports betting company. I have yet to actually hear anyone defend their actual actions in a plausible way. |
|
| ▲ | 55555 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It barely makes sense, though? The idea is that it will surface insider information to the public. That happens only because the insider is financially incentivized to place a bet. But they will only bet if they can win money, and they can only win money if someone is taking the other side of their bet, which necessarily means someone without their insider information. In other words, prediction markets require suckers to lose money to insiders in order for the public to learn new information. In this case, people lost over a million dollars to an insider so the public could learn that "d4vd" was searched a lot. Is this good? |
| |
| ▲ | bzhang255 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Disclaimer: I have not read any literature on the economics of prediction markets, and I know nothing about the mechanics of Polymarket/Kalshi. I would imagine that in theory, everyone thinks they have the best information at the time, something like: House: "Odds that X happens? We'll put $1 on both sides to get it started. 50/50." Someone comes along: "Oh dang, I'm definitely more than 50% confident that X is happening. Let me put $1 in." Now it's 67:33. Someone else comes along: "Oh I'm more than 67% confident X is happening, let me put $1 in." Now it's 75:25. And of course, you get people going: "I'm more than 25% confident that X is _not_ happening, let me put $1 in!" And now it's 60:40. The murky part, I would imagine, comes when the odds and the payout actually act as something that influences the outcome, but in perfect theory-land, if everything goes as planned, this should move the odds to the most informationally-accurate measurement, which should, in theory, benefit observers by making this measurement public. | |
| ▲ | derefr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People with insider information often aren't necessarily aware they even have it. "Superforecasters" are often just "good at predicting" moves within a given vertical, because they have expertise and exposure to the trends of that vertical, and are good at making deductions and extrapolating trends. Those people make money from prediction markets just as often as people with true insider info do. And the people they're both making money from, are people who think they have enough expertise + exposure to function as superforecasters — and who probably could function as superforecasters, in a market with fewer "sharks" in the pool — but who lose out simply because they were slightly less well-calibrated than whoever they were trading with. Which is to say: prediction markets can still work and be worthwhile to participate in, even if everyone in them is rational. They don't require suckers. But, in practice, they certainly do seem to attract them. | | |
| ▲ | dubbel 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > And the people they're both making money from, are people who think they have enough expertise + exposure to function as superforecasters — and who probably could function as superforecasters, in a market with fewer "sharks" in the pool — but who lose out simply because they were slightly less well-calibrated than whoever they were trading with. This seems like a complicated way to say "suckers". Of course they don't usually self-identify as such and think they act rationally. | |
| ▲ | sedimannapoleon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | lordnacho an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And the natural end point of this logic is called the lemon problem. It's been written about extensively and is in every undergraduate economics course. How have dots not been connected? | |
| ▲ | chii 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Is this good? it is good if the losers are voluntarily participating. They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it, and therefore, it is reasonable that they expected to win the bet. The only problem i have with polymarket (and others like it) are that insiders can often remain anonymous. It should not, and if an insider earns, but their win requires they remain anonymous or face some social/reputational repercussions, then that should happen. Therefore, as long as KYC is enforced for these markets, i would have zero issues with their existence. | | |
| ▲ | valleyer an hour ago | parent [-] | | In most modern societies, we regulate all sorts of things that people would otherwise willingly do to their own detriment. We ban drugs; we have labor laws; we have usury laws; we require seatbelts; we have securities regulations; etc. (Notably, until very recently, this included most forms of gambling.) So the mere fact that losers are voluntary does not, IMO, make the situation good. |
| |
| ▲ | jquery 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yep. It’s basically how Wall Street functioned before regulations showed up to protect the public. |
|
|
| ▲ | mikeyouse 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That’s the academic theory behind these markets, but there’s no actual value to knowing who the most searched celebrity will be or any of this other garbage. It’s just an unregulated casino with guesses about the popularity of Google searches instead of guessing black or red. |
| |
| ▲ | hellojesus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If it's unregulated, how are people getting charged with insider trading? | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not being regulated as a casino (which would limit what the casino could do). It is being regulated, to a limited extent, like a commodity market (which does limit what the participants can do). | |
| ▲ | jliptzin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If 0.01% of people engaging in insider trading are caught and prosecuted, it is effectively unregulated. | |
| ▲ | AtNightWeCode 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I believe Polymarket wants it to fall under the regulations of cftc as it is implemented like an option/event contract. And cftc says that they don't care about which technology is used. But as far as I now this is the first case it will be tested for real and the views of cftc and a judge may not be the same. I fail to see how it can be classified as insider trading. But, it is till fraud so I'm not sure how much it matters in the end. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | solarkraft 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s not rare nowadays that speculation on some topic will include the Polymarket rates. Google searches: Maybe not. Maybe that’s just gambling for the fun of it. |
|
|
| ▲ | nezi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, but let’s consider the bet the accused took: who is the most searched person in 2025. What benefit is there in knowing this ahead of time? Who is making decisions based on this? |
| |
| ▲ | breppp 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you run a records company I assume this might be worth some money | | |
| ▲ | vineyardmike 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As opposed to the publicly available Google Trends data? As opposed to running legitimate market research? Wouldn't you rather know the most searched person in your vertical, market, etc? The data in this example was going to be made public anyways. All the examples of prediction markets are predicated on them becoming public. You not only need the info, you need the info before it becomes public. | |
| ▲ | manarth 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not always enough to know what - the why is often important. For example, d4vd is a famous musician, and search stats may indicate his potential popularity and future record sales. Or the public may be searching his name to find out more about the body found in his car, and the subsequent murder investigation and arrest. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | mikeweiss 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are correct, but you say this like the prediction markets are open about this fact. They aren't and if you ask them they will deny this. |
| |
| ▲ | hoten 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think they are open about it. John Oliver did a piece on it last month and I recall an interview where the founder of one of these prediction markets shared this as a beneficial effect of the product. | | |
| ▲ | mikeweiss 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I once asked in Kalshi subreddit if insider trading was the entire point and my post was removed by the mods.. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | not2b 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cool. So we benefit by prediction markets surfacing insider information about Trump's plans in the Iran conflict, and unknown insiders making hundreds of millions on that information with massive trades minutes before each announcement benefited the people watching prices in the oil market? That doesn't seem right. |
|
| ▲ | croes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nice try to make crimes sound legal. |
|
| ▲ | jquery 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Couldn’t that same argument be used to justify stock market insider trading? The problem with insiders is not just that they can surface information, but they can actually manipulate the results. It’s why baseball players can’t bet on the results of their games, even if a prediction market guru might argue “their bets surface valuable information” or something. |
|
| ▲ | Domenic_S 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hmm, not following. The insider trade in this case was small enough to not change the lines meaningfully, no? D4vd's chances of being #1 went from <1% to >99% nearly overnight, was a huge upset. Polymarket might be different, but conventional Vegas-style lines change with the amount of $$ bet, if the pool is $50M and an insider bets $10k on the long shot, the line isn't moving -- I don't see how insider information can be surfaced in this scenario except after the fact (and only maybe then). In other words, if the line changes enough to signal insider info, it's not really insider info anymore. |
| |
| ▲ | nostrademons 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because these markets aren't all that efficient yet (possibly because other potential market participants are scared off by insider trading charges). You don't have multiple people that all have insider information betting against each other, you have one person with insider information that cleans out everybody else. If this repeats enough, all the people without insider information will get cleaned out and exit the market, all the other people with insider information will enter the market for profit, and prices should converge to true likelihood. And yes, the whole purpose of prediction markets is to turn insider info into public info. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > And yes, the whole purpose of prediction markets is to turn insider info into public info. You realize that betting on an event you have insider info on is against their terms and conditions, right? So while it may be your personal goal, it's certainly not Polymarket's or Kalshi's. | |
| ▲ | Domenic_S 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But you just said "The benefit is to people watching the prices" -- but if the odds haven't properly converged what information does watching the prices get you before-the-fact? Maybe I'm just not getting it, could you lay out a scenario? | | |
| ▲ | geocar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > if the odds haven't properly converged what information does watching the prices get you before-the-fact? How do you know we are "before-the fact"? Because these numbers are bananas? Somebody just tanked their job, their life, for a million bucks. Anybody who took that bet, might've individually spent only a few bucks to see that. Everyone else (the people watching) learned the price of entertainment is a few bucks, and ruining someone's life is a million bucks. Was that a surprise to you? If not, then the (market) prices may be said to have converged (close to) reality. But maybe it is, and you think people would ruin their lives for less, or would pay more for human misery. In any event, the distance between whatever you think that probability is, and the return earned on these odds is information, that we all can enjoy (as benefit) before-the-fact. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | altmanaltman 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The point is to make money by letting people gamble on the future. What you said is a second order effect of doing the first thing. They should at least be regulated under gambling laws, doesnt make sense without it |
|
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What Polymarket says on the topic (https://integrity.polymarket.com/) is that they do not surface insider information and you mustn't trade if you have any. Because the prediction market community is filled with liars and fraudsters, of course, it does seem to be common knowledge that this restriction isn't meant to be taken seriously, much like Polymarket's fake rule that Americans aren't allowed to use it. But once you start from the premise that everything prediction markets say about their rules and practices is a lie, why should we believe they provide any genuine signal for anything? |
| |
| ▲ | solarkraft 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The odds have shown to be largely correct, thanks to people profitably arbitraging away inaccuracies. |
|