sandebertPolymarket gamblers betting millions on war
This is becoming the kind of "VC platform for online war investments".
You:
1. Plan
2. Bet
3. Invest money upfront
4. Execute
5. Redeem your profits
You:
1. Plan
2. Bet
3. Invest money upfront
4. Execute
5. Redeem your profits
Now, can you find enough liquidity in the market to turn a profit? Can you find it before it becomes aparent something is off in the bet?
Could you explain what do you mean? What's the plan and execution here? Planning and executing invasion? If so, there are much better markets than polymarket for making such bets.
I understood the argument like this: If there is a bet going that a war doesn't start, and you're able to start said war... Then everyone betting on the war not starting is effectively providing venture capital funds for you to start that war.
So if eg. 20 mil is bet on it not starting, the actor holding the proverbial trigger only needs to "invest" sufficient funds to drain the bet and then capitalize on it by pulling the trigger, everyone being against it would've effectively invested into the war
The analogy breaks apart at VC, because they're expecting payout after successful funding, which this doesn't provide.
I think it's more like Kickstarter/crowdfunding for wars. Just as fucked up though
honestly the profits aren't big enough when you can just go into business if you have that kind of influence
Reminds me of the part in National Lampoon’s Vegas Vacation when Clark Griswold goes to the 3rd rate casino and starts betting on weird things.
So...
>“It used to be the news channels were the callers,” said Kane. “They used to be the final say in big events. Like this officially happened because CNN and Fox News said so. But thanks to Polymarket, there’s a new signal.”
This is interesting because of this:
>At the moment, when there is a dispute, markets on Polymarket are settled by an anonymous group of people who hold a crypto token called UMA.
[...]
>It isn’t known who the largest UMA holders are, or what might affect how they vote. It is entirely possible that the people who finally settle a bet on UMA have large amounts of money staked on it.
So basically instead of trusting CNN and Fox News you trust an anonymous group of people who may or may not profit themselves from their own decisions. I can't see how this is any better.
No. These resolvers only deal with rules disputes, i.e. disputes over the fine print. This is only applicable if you are gambling on polymarket. The probabilities while the market is open are set by market forces.
Of course you have to read the fine print very carefully to understand what a particular market is about.
The more deceptive thing is the potential disparity between the title and the rules. Most market participants read the rules closely (although some do not), and so the title + headline probabilities may be not as they seem.
I think GP is saying that, in principle, the UMA token holders can resolve a dispute any way they see fit, even if in practice it's resolved according to the rules. At the end of the day there is someone who has to arbitrate 'truth' for the purposes of payout.
Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-...
People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself.
> Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to
lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the
death of political leaders, over court cases, or between voters over election results were
illegal on these grounds.14 In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, the British
government increasingly attempted to limit gambling, especially among the working
classes. The Gaming Act of 1845 made gambling contracts and debts unenforceable in
court (but otherwise liberalized what amounts could be wagered); the Betting Houses Act
of 1853 outlawed the operation of betting establishments other than private clubs; the
Betting Houses Act of 1874 cracked down of the advertisement of wagering; and the
Street Betting Act of 1906 made acceptance of wagers in streets and public places
illegal.15 Despite the legal uncertainty in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Fleet
Street press reported on election wagering at the London Stock Exchange and at Lloyd’s
in markets for Parliamentary “majorities.” [^0]
[^0] Rhode, Paul W. “The Long History of Political Betting Markets.” KU School of Business, 2012 March. https://users.wfu.edu/strumpks/papers/Int_Election_Betting_F...
Do they allow for bets like how many civilians killed by Israel during April?
Or how many schools are bombed by the USA?
Or how many times will it take the USA to declare victory before the end of the conflict?