 (8).png)
3 days ago
7
ARTICLE AD BOX
Summary
Bets on crystal-ball platforms like Polymarket over war outcomes and the like reveal what people think. That makes them useful. But what about insider trading? And perverse incentives to make ‘killings’ in such prediction markets?
Global prediction markets have evoked much interest after the Iran war broke out. On Polymarket, a platform for stablecoin bets on various outcomes, “Will the Iranian regime fall by June 30?” was offering users a ‘Yes’ token for 34 US cents and a ‘No’ one for 67 cents on Sunday.
These prices reflect this online market’s view of the stated event’s probability. If the broadly defined ‘regime’ isn’t toppled by this wager’s deadline, the tokens of No-holders will ‘resolve’ to $1 each while Yes-holders get nothing.
As these prices change in line with perceptions, bet holders can sell their chips anytime before it gets resolved one way or the other.
While such markets capture money-backed opinions and enrich what we know, they are controversial. Suspicions of insider trading have shadowed recently resolved bets on armed US action against Iran.
In general, leaks from people in the loop of big decisions don’t just distort crystal-ball markets, their profit upside could create perverse incentives to make a killing, as it were, on high-stake events. If war is too serious a matter to be left to generals, let alone AI, we can only hope that crypto punters never get a say in world affairs of consequence.
English (US) ·