return2ozma'Bone-Chilling': Gamblers ‘Vowing to Kill’ Journalist Unless He Changes Iran War Report to Help Them Win Polymarket Bet
thenextguyI hate this instance of the multiverse.
mEEGal
I Cast Fist
Boomer Humor DoomergodWhich cyberpunk novel is this one pulling from? Yakuza hunting down a reporter over gambling losses isn’t one I remember.
hoshikarakitaridiaLife is so much more fun if you could not only lose your sanity and life, but also your liquidity.
ProdigalFrogThe Shockwave Rider by John Brunner gets close. It introduced the idea of gambling on world events back in the 70’s under the name Delphi Pool. Great little read, too.
Coincidentally, we’re steadily on our way to living in the kind of future he predicted in his other book, The Sheep Look Up.
“I make my living on the evening news,
Just gimme gimme something,
Something I can use.
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry.”
Just gimme gimme something,
Something I can use.
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry.”
dan1101Interesting thing though. How is Polymarket going to arbitrate such things?
There’s going to be discussions that are never going to be truly resolved as opposed to, for example, sports betting, so how does this turn out?
I guess they got a smart ToS but they’re incorporated in the US so I guess they’ll be tested in court sooner rather than later
Why not set up a Polymarket bet for how Polymarket is going to handle this? Or whether they face any kind of legal repercussions at all.
No joke, this is actually very much how it works. For disputes they use UMA tokens, which allows whales to just buy the vote. Although “being too expensive to corrupt” is the point, there’s a bunch of recent news about votes for $50 million markets bought with $7 million worth of coins (which are reusable, once you own them, you can vote on every dispute with the same tokens and voting power).
Well gee, that doesn’t sound like a nightmare of a Ponzi scheme at all
They pay for voting power in disputes over betting so that it literally only gives return by new investors - exactly like how any ponzi scheme works
“Voting power” has nothing to do with the original ponzi scheme. It was all about using the money from new investors to fake high returns on investments for all investors. So a betting market where people aren’t assured return at all starts from quite a different proposition, and adding “buying voting power” to it does nothing to increase the similarity.
💕🎉 WE’RE ALL IN HELL! 🎉💕
cnbc.com/…/polymarket-secures-investment-from-tru…
Yes, this is a way to do do insider trading at scale with crypto markets to get money from idiots who are still clinging to NFTs and make the money disappear
This started here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWVKiBsdvRA
military correspondent for The Times of Israel
Eh, let them cook
Luminous5481 "Lawless Heathen" [they/them]Suddenly they care about Israelis coming after journalists.
Can somebody eli5 me this? I am not sure I am getting it
🔍🦘🛎Polymarket is a place to put bets on anything: if the groundhog sees his shadow, if a hurricane makes landfall, if the US bombs Iran. You know just fun betting. Except now people put down huge sums, and just prior to the Iran war, insiders were putting down MILLIONS on the war starting that day. It makes it immediately obvious there are dangerous conflicts of interest.
But, who pays? I could bet you a million I will eat a sandwish today
The platform puts up the bets, and you can “buy” a share in the “future prediction”
Basically you put in a sum on one option, buying a % of the winnings if that option is the one that the platform decides won.
Hold on… so somebody in the company defines the bets? Like bombing dates and stuff? Users just get to pick whatever is available?
If betting on Polymarket, you would actually have to stump up that money first, and the other person would have to do the same with whatever bid they wanted to use. Then, in order to get any kind of reasonable payback, you would need thousands of other people to make a bet for or against, using their own money.
The payout isn’t on someone making a bet on themselves, no-one else would bet for or against that as the stakes are so small. The payout is on large-scale events that are - ostensibly - out of the control of the bettor or bettee.
Oh, so I can post a bet on anything. And the game only starts when somebody picks up the other side: betting against my prediction.
Someone has to take the other side of the bet.
Everything is a yes or no question. You can buy a yes or no option for anywhere between 1 cent and 99 cents. When an outcome is finalized, the side that had the correct prediction has their option goto $1.00
So as an outcome becomes more likely, its price moves towards $1.
So when you buy a contact for less than 50 cents you are buying the underdog, when it’s over 50 cents you are backing the favorite.
Let’s say that the contact is if you will eat a sandwich today. I’m guessing most people will think you will eat a sandwich so the “yes” contract will probably cost 99 cents or so.
If someone pays 99 cents for that option and you do eat a sandwich they get back $1 total, or 1 cent profit.
Well what if I’m your doctor and you come in to me with food poisoning. Now I have inside information and I can buy an option that you will not eat a sandwich today for 1 cent and if you don’t eat a sandwich I’ll get back $1 for every penny I put towards the “no” outcome.
So the big issue is people having inside information and using these prediction markets to illegally make money and it’s really hard to track.
In the article, it appears that only 1 missile landed and that the only source for it was this author’s article. So the people that bet on the “no” outcome are trying to get him to change his article so the outcome is contested and they can maybe win their bet. They are using the position that what landed was a piece of a missile that was intercepted.
There is now a huge financial motivation to report news that isn’t factual.
So now not only the editor can have financial incentives to force journalists to push an agenda, but literally anybody!
The thing I struggle with, is how do they manage ensuring thier is a bet on the other side to balance. I mean someone has to make the first bet. I assume you can offer, but if no one or not enough people take the offer then your offer doesn’t conver to a real bet or something? And if that is how it works, say someone puts up money on a significant underdog. There would likely be a lot of interest, probably more than needed to balance the bet. How do they decide who gets the action and who doesn’t?
The two sides don’t have to be balanced. That’s what “betting odds” are. If there are 3 “yes” bets and 1 “no” bet then there are 3:1 odds. If the “no” wins they will get much more money because they don’t have to split it with anyone.
Sure, but do the odds change constantly with each person buying in? And if so, does that mean somone who bought in at 10 to 1, could end up getting 2 to 1 by the time it pays out?
No, in this case, you own the contract. A winning decision is always worth $1 but the current price that people are offering their yes or no contract for sale change like a stock ticker.
There’s a bid and an ask, and when there are no takers people will adjust their offer or selling prices. Just like stock. The demand on either side changes the current price. In this case there are always two opposite sides with opposite prices in relation to $1
wolfkin@Modern_medicine_isnt @cdf12345 balance matters. As Ayy points out odds help incentivize balance. If one person puts a lot of money on heads. They'll give you better odds on tails.
of course you also have to consider likely outcomes like 100k on the hare and they'll be more willing to give you great odds on the tortoise.
no one says the odds have to be even. The house makes money either way on trans fees and other bits of skim. Plus odds are in their favor. They often have money to start too
quick_snailPoly market is a gambling platform where people bet on things that will happen in real life.
Bob made a bet that Iran would bomb Israel on some specific date.
Unrelated and unaware about Bob, Fabian is a journalist. Fabian wrote an accurate article describing an attack where Iran bombed Israel.
Bob’s bet was wrong. He’s about to loose a lot of money. So Bob threatens to kill Fabian. Bob tells Fabien he must change his story, so Bob doesn’t loose money.
First, that is deeply fucked up. Second, who pays or determine which way a bet went?
Do you see how many bets may end up in ambiguous states where it is interpretable which side won?
~~If the bet is successful, Polymarket pays out — just like how more conventional betting works ~~ (Edit: this is incorrect — it uses matched betting. See the comment below mine for more detail)
In terms of who determines which way a bet goes, it seems like this is also Polymarket, and that they rely on journalistic coverage and official announcements.
This journalist reported that one of the missiles landed and exploded, and it appears that this was used to deny paying out to the people who places at bet that no missiles would land that day. The gamblers tried to coerce the journalist to change their report to say that all of the missiles were intercepted, and that the thing that actually landed and exploded was just a missile fragment from the intercepted missile. I have no idea whether this would’ve actually changed the outcome of the bet from Polymarket’s perspective, but the gamblers certainly seemed to think so.
It highlights the absurdity of betting on events like this
Actually Polymarket never pays out. Every bet is matched with someone holding the opposite bet (and prices to make a bet shift accordingly to market demand for each side). Polymarket just rakes in fees, but they never lose money regardless of how a bet goes.
Oh, I didn’t know that. Thanks for correcting me
whotookkarlShayne Coplan is the billionaire manchild who owns polymarket along with a couple other billionaire cofounders like Peter Thiel.
What’s even more fucked up is that there’s nothing preventing DoD employees from also betting on this stuff while simultaneously being the ones deciding the who, what, when, where, and why of bombing another country.
isn’t it DoW, now?
DoW… DOW… coincidence? I think not
Nah, I refuse to normalize the rhetoric of the treasonous Nazis leading the country.
djdarrenI don’t think they can actually change the name without jumping through tons of hoops, and we know they aren’t doing that. So its still DoD they just call it DoW.
Always cool when the commander in chief promises no wars, starts multiple geopolitically unprecedented conflicts and at least one war while renaming the department of defense into the department of war. Hope he gets the nobel peace price, he seems like he really deserves it.
For an entertaining and sufficient way to understand what’s going on, I highly recommend watching South Park S27E5 titled Conflict of Interest
Aired September 24, 2025 , it explains how poly market works, specifically in the context of Israel’s genocide and how it relates (and doesn’t relate) to US Jews.
I watched it, I kind of got it, but now, after these explanations (thanks, people 😁) it is much more funny.
I want to make this perfectly clear. “You wanna make a bet?” died in fucking elementary school for me. Like it should for every mature, sane human. Gambling is for, and done by, the most immature, underdeveloped losers in our society. I’ve never once met someone who went to a casino and told me about that I didn’t instantly lose a measureable amount of respect for. I would have absolutely no qualms about levelling every casino on the planet and forcing the property owners to donate the land to public park space.
You are not “winners with no winnings”. You are losers.
The fact that it is growing in popularity and we now have douche canoes on polymarket every second commercial just tells me we’re devolving.
I dunno, I have a lot of respect for people who gamble in casinos and get kicked out for winning too much against the house because they’ve mastered card counting and pattern recognition.
I also don’t see a big problem with people occasionally hitting up a casino for some fun once in a while - it’s no different than hitting up an arcade really.
My problem is the industry preying on people who don’t know when to stop and get suckered in by the advertisements.
GodricBasically all of modern society functions off of the back of an elaborate , rigged gambling system.
That’s what the stock market is, in a very real way.
I still don’t get how they make the stock market appear distinct from horse racing for example. Same shit, different name. And don’t hit me with the “but you could research the stocks beforehand so it’s not random” yeah and you can research the horses and riders and it’s still fking gambling and basically 99% random. Well except for insider trading. That’s like a Mafia in gambling, it’s somehow even worse.