alt.hn

3/7/2026 at 8:09:30 PM

War prediction markets are a national-security threat

 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/03/polymarket-insider-trading-going-get-people-killed/686283/

by fortran77

3/7/2026 at 10:25:17 PM

For whatever it's worth, Kalshi refused to pay out on the bet because Khomenei died, and they refuse to allow people to profit off of death so they returned everyone's bets.

https://xcancel.com/mansourtarek_/status/2029996077554815268

While I think this policy removes one avenue of incentivizing death of real people (many bets involving real people can probably be resolved by some sort of assassination attempt), I honestly think the whole concept of betting on real world events is ludicrous to begin with, including sports. It always incentivizes behavior that doesn't naturally occur (the trope of fixing horse races comes to mind).

by abustamam

3/7/2026 at 11:04:56 PM

Just this afternoon I was reading an account of one of the earliest known betting ledgers, the "Betting Book" at White's, a private member's club in London. In the 18th century, one of the most common bets taken up by members was which Lord or nobleman would outlive another. One bet had a note under it that the wager was not settled up by the bettors because the subjects both died of suicide within a few months of each other.

by PaulRobinson

3/7/2026 at 10:44:02 PM

Well, certainly, if they had chosen otherwise it is unlikely they could have continued to operate:

> ...the Commission may determine that such agreements, contracts, or transactions are contrary to the public interest if the agreements, contracts, or transactions involve—(I) activity that is unlawful under any Federal or State law; (II) terrorism; (III) assassination; (IV) war; (V) gaming; or (VI) other similar activity determined by the Commission, by rule or regulation, to be contrary to the public interest.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-12125/p-93

by arjie

3/8/2026 at 5:30:38 PM

On the other hand this possibly forces people to put their mouth where their money is. It would be great to be able to hold all those politicians and pundits at least financially accountable. Oh,so you say that this spending is not going to be a problem because the economy will grow twice that much. Sooo, how much did you bet on that? And how did your bets go last year.

by Paradigma11

3/9/2026 at 4:57:18 PM

Definitely interesting idea given how lockstep parties operate. Ostensibly representatives should be uh, representing local interests, over party, but we've seen this isn't the case.

So if one side is claiming something, yes, would absolutely love to see how much of their net worth is tied into betting that something would come to fruition (like lowering inflation, or medical care, or increasing jobs, etc)

by VirusNewbie

3/8/2026 at 6:23:47 PM

That's actually a great idea!

by abustamam

3/7/2026 at 11:50:54 PM

I'm unfamiliar with Kalshi's ethics. Would they have paid out if only non-famous human beings died in the ousting?

by Paracompact

3/8/2026 at 1:52:21 AM

Not sure. For the record I don't think of Kalshi as an ethical company. I just found it interesting that it's the only company that seems to be getting press coverage for refusing to pay out because of this.

by abustamam

3/7/2026 at 11:18:05 PM

I guess it is just human nature to gamble on everything, anything. And when government puts down a heavy hand they turn to more lucrative underground shops.

by markus_zhang

3/7/2026 at 11:26:23 PM

I always thought that "Gray's Sports Almanac" in Back to the Future 2 would quickly become useless as all sorts of factors after large public bets would cause events to change and sports scores just wouldn't line up anymore.

by whycome

3/7/2026 at 10:27:12 PM

What is xcancel?

by xeromal

3/7/2026 at 10:29:04 PM

Nitter instance for Twitter/X. https://github.com/zedeus/nitter

by tossit444

3/7/2026 at 10:35:12 PM

Thank you! Nitter looks great.

by xeromal

3/7/2026 at 10:40:24 PM

Only bets on fake world events?

by foodforpokemon

3/7/2026 at 10:44:02 PM

The author spends the first paragraph of the article talking about how n number of users bet x on a specific outcome and they won. They fail to account for the many others who bet on a different outcome and lost.

I watched polymarket like a hawk for weeks before the attack and am incredibly familiar with the numbers. Fact is, there were no indications on Polymarket that an attack was happening that morning. The chances of an attack was like 10 percent if I remember correctly.

by zer0x4d

3/7/2026 at 10:48:35 PM

Right, the probability pre-attack never broke even 30%, which was basically in line with the most prominent opinions. The market consensus had been for a long time that there would be an attack by this summer or the end of the year, but probably not near-term. There will always be some bull traders who buy just before a big move in the market, that's no proof of insider trading.

by zozbot234

3/8/2026 at 7:30:02 AM

> that's no proof of insider trading.

It isn't. But also the whole point of prediction markets is to allow insiders to profit in return for providing valuable information.

by tasuki

3/7/2026 at 11:19:01 PM

These sorts of things are in their infancy.

Give people enough time, and they'll start figuring out more and more ways to try to predict the markets given observations of the real world. Some will fail, but some will definitely succeed.

by lenerdenator

3/7/2026 at 8:32:29 PM

Isnt this silly when you can calculate the chance of war in Iran by oil futures instead. Prediction markets are just explicit markers of information that is already being traded on in 100 different ways.

by Footnote7341

3/7/2026 at 8:35:33 PM

Yeah but less direct incentive than "If my friends (and I) bet money on X, and I do X, they (and I) make money."

by jimkleiber

3/7/2026 at 9:20:51 PM

Not by much, plus the volume is much lower on prediction markets, so people with large pockets who happen to be in power and are capable of doing big moves like this would make more money on the oil futures.

by metalcrow

3/9/2026 at 1:01:07 PM

Perhaps for people who have large sums of money, they don't tend to play in high risk bets anyways, they don't need to. Large sums make large sums on small percentage movement. Most people don't have enough money to make large sums on small percentage increase, id assume this route makes more sense for like the vast majority of humans, especially the ones who have access to privileged, often government, information.

by jimkleiber

3/7/2026 at 9:48:01 PM

I wonder if there's profit to be made by looking at the futures markets, figuring out the implied probability distribution of different events, and then buying prediction markets when there's a mis-match? There sure are many inexperienced players entering predictions markets, just waiting to be fleeced...

by pinkmuffinere

3/7/2026 at 10:22:21 PM

That's one of the intended uses of prediction markets! Although much like cryptocurrency arbitrage i assume the margins are small and will quickly be eaten by bigger fish.

by metalcrow

3/7/2026 at 10:48:10 PM

Huh interesting. I suppose markets with low volume would tend to be the most profitable opportunities in that case? But then maybe they’re low volume because it’s hard to say what will happen…

by pinkmuffinere

3/7/2026 at 11:36:51 PM

I agree in some ways.

Like, I think in a way it's just not viable to patch every little loophole a corrupt or morally bankrupt administration could exploit and all damage it could cause, and probably not without making the administration itself useless. It's a still a good idea to patch as much as feasible, in part to if slightly discourage the worse from seeking power in the first place. But in a way, it's garbage in, garbage out. Laws will never be able to magically turn corrupt and misguided decisions into ever good ones. The robust solution is promoting wisdom, ethics, civility and education, so people make good democratic choices for themselves and others.

by thinking_cactus

3/7/2026 at 8:36:03 PM

The idea is not economic hedging but gambling and corruption

by breppp

3/7/2026 at 9:39:54 PM

Yes, but they are saying that if you allow economic hedging, you are also allowing gambling - just a bit more indirectly.

by nazcan

3/7/2026 at 9:46:38 PM

maybe, but that is a by product of a real function (hedging). The reason prediction markets deal with news is so they can attract gamblers. Also compare marketing efforts of prediction markets and SEC control of real markets

by breppp

3/7/2026 at 10:50:45 PM

It's a big difference. There's vastly less chance someone manages to expose state secrets through their bets on oil futures. The volume is higher, and the prediction is less specific.

by geysersam

3/7/2026 at 9:56:40 PM

Oil prices are affected by many other things too. It's valuable to isolate individual factors.

by tlb

3/7/2026 at 9:32:58 PM

> Isnt this silly when you can calculate the chance of war in Iran by oil futures instead

This is why I'm opposed to prediction markets - they're gamified futures contracts (unsurprising given the founders at Kalshi are ex-Citadel and why Intercontinental Exchange executed growth equity rounds with Polymarket). A lot of degenerate gamblers are basically being taken to the cleaners as they lack the experience to actually mitigate risk or understand how to strucure futures contracts.

And an actual insider has much easier and much more legally defensible alternatives to conduct insider trading than using a platform that has KYC requirements.

by alephnerd

3/7/2026 at 8:42:15 PM

Yeah we should ban derivatives too.

by amelius

3/7/2026 at 9:25:49 PM

I hope everyone reading this realizes that commodity futures are useful and easily distinguished from prediction markets, which are a ruse to get around restrictions on gambling.

by Zigurd

3/7/2026 at 10:48:58 PM

The world did fine before derivatives. In fact some might say it did even better. And gambling only makes the wealth gap worse. And there is a ton of nasty incentives linked to it.

by amelius

3/8/2026 at 1:01:11 AM

> world did fine before derivatives

The Hittites and Bronze-Age Egyptians had forward-deliverable contracts that, if you squint, they would trade amongst each other. The idea of being able to assign a contract to a third party to which you're a beneficiary is about as old as civilisation. In part because it's obvious. In part because it's impossible to police. But mostly because it's useful.

(I'm ignoring insurance and reinsurance, both of which are derivatives and rely heavily upon them.)

by JumpCrisscross

3/8/2026 at 1:46:27 AM

The scale of things was much different back then. Not comparable.

by amelius

3/8/2026 at 2:37:46 AM

> scale of things was much different back then

"Scale back derivatives" is a reasonable argument. "Ban derivatives" is silly.

> Not comparable

Totally comparable. I'm actually struggling to think of an infrastructure-building civilisation in history that didn't have some form of tradable forwards.

by JumpCrisscross

3/8/2026 at 1:05:32 AM

Nonsense. Derivatives have been actively traded in the USA at least since 1848 (and even earlier in other countries). Nothing was better about the world in 1847.

by nradov

3/8/2026 at 12:20:48 PM

The Dutch? Early 1500s?

That is what my reading recollection is recalling on 'derivative-like".

by egberts1

3/7/2026 at 11:05:29 PM

Incase you missed this in the Epstein files:

> This is the way the jew make money.. and made a fortune the past ten years, selling short the shipping futures, let the goyim deal in the real world.

One instance obviously, but not often do you hear them say the quiet part out loud. Most of the times it’s just firms profiting off hardship and/or prior knowledge, which is easy to hide.

by anshabs

3/8/2026 at 12:23:14 AM

Who’s “we”?

You or I certainly don’t have a say in this

by gos9

3/7/2026 at 9:07:51 PM

/s?

by gruez

3/7/2026 at 9:18:11 PM

Don’t think so. A lot of peoples’ first reaction to something they don’t understand is to try and make it go away.

by JumpCrisscross

3/7/2026 at 9:22:45 PM

A lot of people reaction to understanding what derivatives are are also to try and make them go away. Thinking derivatives are legalized gambling, and being against gambling entirely, doesn't require a lack of understanding of derivatives to be against them.

by fragmede

3/8/2026 at 1:02:59 AM

> thinking derivatives are legalized gambling, and being against gambling entirely, doesn't require a lack of understanding of derivatives to be against them

No, but anyone who has an introductory knowledge of derivatives and their history will know of the Onion Futures Act, which banned "the trading of futures contracts on onions" to predictable (albeit long term) effects.

Broadly speaking, the less someone knows about derivatives and the further their work is from the production of any good (versus services), the more likely they are to get upset about it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act#cite_note-fo...

by JumpCrisscross

3/7/2026 at 9:00:54 PM

Except this wasn't driven by Oil. It was driven by Israel.

by pstuart

3/7/2026 at 10:01:11 PM

The White House has admitted that Israel had actionable intelligence that several of the Iranian political leadership were having a physical meeting together and they decided to attack to decapitate the government. The US decided to attack Iranian capabilities preemptively to reduce the inevitable response to US military, embassies, and allies in the region.

by thephyber

3/8/2026 at 1:17:43 AM

Striking schools and killing school children has not reduced the inevitable response.

by voganmother42

3/7/2026 at 10:07:57 PM

It’s bad enough the politicians lied when they campaigned on no more wars in the Middle East, they don’t need to insult our intelligence with these moronic cover stories.

If they didn’t want Israel dragging the US into wars they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them.

by mullingitover

3/9/2026 at 2:00:58 PM

I see the White House adopting the strategy that the Russian and USSR government / state media use frequently: change the narrative early and often, to the point where people don’t feel like they can ever know the truth.

The downing of flight MH-17 as reported by Russian media was instructive. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-m...

I also frequently refer back to why Russian language has 2 different words for truth: istina and pravda.

by thephyber

3/8/2026 at 5:56:45 AM

> they could’ve just placed a call to Iran to warn them

Deciding not to betray your ally isn't a "moronic cover story".

If you're going to portray that as the alternative you actually make their actions sound more reasonable.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 6:42:53 AM

If your “ally” is, as this story goes, forcing you into a war against your will, protecting your own citizens and troops takes priority over any favors you might owe these “friends.”

Of course if you actually wanted to start this war, and wanted a low effort cover story, you’d…do exactly this kind of lazy, low effort lie.

by mullingitover

3/8/2026 at 7:15:59 AM

What are you even calling a lie? (not the campaign promises, the recent statements) The claims are something like this, right?: 1. Israel decided to attack 2. The US thought about how that would play out. 3. The US decided to attack too.

Which of those claims is untrue? Is there a claim I missed?

"The US could have snitched to Iran" does not contradict any of those claims.

Also I'm not convinced that warning Iran would have made things much safer for US troops. And you can say what you want about what the US priorities should be, but that's a whole different discussion.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 7:52:52 AM

The US claim is that their attack is a sort of pre-emptive self-defense because Israel forced their hand. That’s what I’m calling a lie: Israel could’ve been dissuaded, trivially, if the US didn’t want to start a war with Iran.

by mullingitover

3/8/2026 at 8:13:11 AM

Their hand was forced, and it was "a sort of pre-emptive self-defense". I'm still not seeing the lie. You think they should have done something different, but "should have done something different" is a completely different criticism.

And what you think is "trivial" is far from certain.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 8:26:23 AM

> I'm still not seeing the lie

It’s an absolute howler that the United States would be led around by the nose by a country smaller than New Jersey. C’mon, man. You honestly believe that the massive military buildup that preceded this was just a wild coincidence?

If the Israelis were actually pushing the US around in the way we’re supposed to believe in this story the US would absolutely ruin them in a heartbeat. Netanyahu would be in prison in a timeframe measured in hours.

by mullingitover

3/8/2026 at 9:04:48 AM

Pushing the US to make some kind of decision isn't the kind of "pushing around" that would make the US attack Israel. Your ideas of alternate ways for this to play out have gone from weird to absolutely ridiculous.

The US might have already decided it was going to attack, but it just as easily might not have.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 7:02:52 PM

I’m sorry but this is simply an unserious argument.

by mullingitover

3/8/2026 at 7:16:16 PM

It's plenty serious. You don't like how they acted and how they gave partial explanations so you're calling it an obvious lie even though it's not.

They didn't say it was their absolute only option or something like that, as far as I know. (If they did say that you needed to mention it.) That would have been a clear lie. Saying Israel moved first is just... plausible.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 9:49:23 PM

> You don't like how they acted

I don't like having my intelligence insulted by such brazen falsehoods, so in that regard this is true.

I'm happy for your heroic amounts of credulity, it must make life a lot easier in this administration.

by mullingitover

3/8/2026 at 11:32:28 PM

>> You don't like how they acted

> I don't like having my intelligence insulted by such brazen falsehoods, so in that regard this is true.

Okay I guess I assumed you disliked the stuff you were calling a lie and a moronic cover story.

> I'm happy for your heroic amounts of credulity, it must make life a lot easier in this administration.

It's not that I'm being very credulous, it's that they said very little about their decision process. The claims you're objecting to are relatively minor details about the situation. You keep exaggerating the implications of their claims every time you say why they must be wrong.

by Dylan16807

3/7/2026 at 10:15:19 PM

We live in a post truth age, unfortunately. Many citizens are happy to only hew to the truth that they want, versus the "real" truth. (note the quotes -- truth is tricky).

There's a bitter irony in this issue -- toppling the regime in Iran would be a wonderful thing, but doing so via bombs is not the way. We have Afghanistan and Iraq as very dear lessons in how not to do it.

by pstuart

3/7/2026 at 10:27:05 PM

[flagged]

by _menelaus

3/7/2026 at 10:51:51 PM

You think that type of network stays within one administration?

Political sex blackmail has been a problem.

by DANmode

3/9/2026 at 1:02:57 PM

This administration seems especially compromised, servile and obsequious. But you're right, both sides of the aisle have been successfully targeted for years. Both sides really don't want the unredacted files to come to light, but Trump least of all.

by _menelaus

3/7/2026 at 10:59:12 PM

Absolutely, but the current administration is a whole new level of WTF. I've followed US politics for half a century and this feels like through the looking glass stuff.

by pstuart

3/7/2026 at 10:59:52 PM

Something’s definitely fucked.

by DANmode

3/9/2026 at 3:07:46 AM

That has nothing to do with the point of my post.

by Footnote7341

3/7/2026 at 9:37:01 PM

No idea why you're being downvoted, there is a mountain of evidence that this is the case. We are doing this because of Israel.

Marco Rubio said outright we went in because of Israel. Just watch Trump's speeches, he literally talks about the power of the Israel lobby and hopes he is doing a good job for them. Netanyahu has visited Trump 7 times in the last year, each visit has been leading up to this move. Trump's biggest mega donors are Israeli dual citizens with strong ties to their home country. Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Elison (who has conveniently taken control of the TikTok algorithm and banned the phrase "#freepalestine" through his connection with Trump) have donated hundreds of millions for this exact outcome. These donors have direct ties to the Israeli government.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/13/who-is-miriam-adel...

There is very little evidence that the strikes are being driven by oil, in fact oil is the perfect excuse to use as cover. It was the exact same thing with the Iraq war. Iraq and Iran were the two largest threats to Israel, we went into Iraq to regime change them and now we are finishing the job with Iran. Now there are no threats to Israel's expansion to the rest of the middle east. The ruling party (Likud) supports the Greater Israel project, which aims to expand Israel's borders to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

by Dig1t

3/7/2026 at 9:42:53 PM

I'm assuming that it's assumed that I'm slagging on Israel for some irrational hate -- I'm not. I'm commenting based upon reports that I've seen (effectively what you're referred to), not on ideology or feellings.

Thanks for having my back! I think of HN as a community of intelligent people and it's always disappointing to be reminded that that alone is no guarantee of healthy discourse.

by pstuart

3/9/2026 at 2:04:32 PM

Looking back at this, I’m confused why my comment was a reply to yours. I suspect I used the reply link on the wrong comment.

by thephyber

3/7/2026 at 8:56:03 PM

I said this in another thread, but if you were to ask me "what is the biggest 180 you've made on some political or policy question in the last decade", it would for sure be prediction markets. I used to be all-in on the idea after reading Caplan, Taleb etc.: make people have "skin in the game" on a grand scale and we can have better predictions and better policy! But what a disaster they've been in practice: it's just a new avenue for government corruption and ruining your life with gambling. And now apparently a nat-sec problem as well.

by Analemma_

3/7/2026 at 9:15:08 PM

Maybe the employees are only copying their leaders.

by Smar

3/7/2026 at 8:31:00 PM

Placing a bet based on insider national security information should be regarded as leaking. But the markets aren't the problem here.

by Uhhrrr

3/7/2026 at 8:36:31 PM

Well markets give a huge financial incentive for it. Before you had to get paid a bribe for an intelligence agent. Now you can just "legitimately" bet on a market. It's a LOT easier and more spread out, I imagine.

by jimkleiber

3/7/2026 at 10:00:28 PM

The existence of banks gives a huge financial incentive to rob them. That doesn't mean we should get rid of banks. It means we should create a huge disincentive to rob them (which we do). Same thing needs to happen to people using national intelligence secrets in prediction markets.

by spiderice

3/9/2026 at 12:57:02 PM

Banks are about saving money and reducing risk. Arguably when they got into high risk investments to make high reward is what contributed to the 2008 recession.

Not sure if banks are the best example of proving the country is not headed towards high risk gambling.

by jimkleiber

3/7/2026 at 10:42:03 PM

That requires active participation in regulation and enforcement.

If anything, this administration is moving the other direction when it comes to betting markets, crypto, investments, etc.

What you are saying is logical for how enforcement should happen, but it isn’t happening that way.

by thephyber

3/8/2026 at 3:24:51 AM

On the other hand, it provides the whole world with the information and not just some spy agency. Isn't that more fair system?

And people dying in question is army, professional murderers for hire themselves, not a big loss.

by dmantis

3/7/2026 at 9:25:07 PM

You couldn’t design a better system for incentivizing leaks if you were trying. Hell, the CEO literally said as much. Not sure how you can conclude the markets aren’t the problem.

by _vertigo

3/7/2026 at 10:20:48 PM

Yeah I had to reread that part... I was like, no way the CEO of Polymarket publicly said on record that it incentivizes leaks. Had to check to make sure I wasn't on the onion.

by abustamam

3/7/2026 at 10:43:15 PM

The CFTC has been defunded and dismantled. The industries it regulated don’t even bother to put on a mask anymore.

by thephyber

3/8/2026 at 6:03:57 AM

He was talking about companies at that part of the interview, and getting company info leaked to the market is generally a good thing.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 2:10:15 PM

Wow, it took some time for me to dig the interview out(0). I think it's stupid that Atlantic did not link to it, and that they misrepresented the context.

I agree that company info being leaked is whatever. No one is hurt by knowing that Apple is working on a foldable phone; maybe an exec loses his million dollar bonus and can't upgrade his yacht this year, and the market can operate off of that knowledge.

But the flip side is that there's no way to distinguish between leaked company info and leaked government info, and up until this era of history, there was rarely financial incentive for anyone to leak govt info, and even if there were, it was almost impossible to do so completely anonymously.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the article. Who knows if that actually happened? But the incentives make it more plausible than ever.

(0) https://www.youtube.com/live/t647EWQst5A?si=TPNx7RbxWvn9wVdn

by abustamam

3/7/2026 at 10:48:05 PM

Let's make bets on "xxxx leaked yyyy info", so people will be incentived to discover/denounce who cheated.

by w4yai

3/7/2026 at 9:02:31 PM

> The day before, 150 users bet at least $1,000 that the United States would strike Iran within the next 24 hours

Yeah, I heard the same thing at the same time from several friends. And I'm not talking top brass, so it must have been pretty obvious at that point.

by andai

3/7/2026 at 9:11:43 PM

There were definite geopolitical signals of an impending conflict - ie. warships moving into the region, Iran increasing oil exports just days before the attack.

I guess what might be more interesting is how many people bet $1000 the day before that, and the day before that. That would be more helpful to determine what is noise from well-informed outsiders vs. insiders.

by brandall10

3/7/2026 at 9:42:57 PM

> There were definite geopolitical signals of an impending conflict - ie. warships moving into the region, Iran increasing oil exports just days before the attack.

As a noob to this area, how would [Iran increasing oil exports] indicate [higher chance of impending conflict]? Is the idea that Iran exported more oil to raise some funds in expectation of the conflict? Surely if Iran expected conflict it would have done more than just increase oil exports?

by pinkmuffinere

3/7/2026 at 9:49:13 PM

It could signal potential disruption to the Strait of Hormuz.

by brandall10

3/7/2026 at 10:12:36 PM

And what were the odds?

That is, if it's 20:1, say, then I can bet $1000 to win $20,000. I can do that several days in a row (if I've got that kind of money). If I think there's, say, a 25% chance that the US is going to attack, then I only have to be within four days.

by AnimalMuppet

3/8/2026 at 6:10:58 AM

It really wasn't rocket science. Even I packed my go bag and loaded up the car on Friday night, and I have no information they don't share on the news. (I live in Israel, and when the first siren woke me at ~8 on Saturday morning I jumped in the car and evacuated to a family member who lives in a building with a bomb shelter)

I could've been wrong, but it was a reasonable guess. The local Israeli news anchors were in the newsroom broadcasting within minutes of the attack going public, I guess they slept in the office with their clothes on too.

by names_are_hard

3/7/2026 at 9:22:28 PM

Rhetorical question: why do non-insiders still bet in these markets? Surely, after all of the focus on insiders, people will begin to realize that betting without insider knowledge is a fool’s gambit..

by _vertigo

3/7/2026 at 9:34:27 PM

Because the way these companies make money is incentivizing the behavior of gambling addicts. It's just like asking why people will continue taking drugs if it's known to harm them.

by coliveira

3/7/2026 at 10:50:47 PM

You act like they all act rationally with maximum information.

Kids are growing up with the culture of sports betting, meme stocks, Robinhood for easy investing (even if you can’t afford a single share of a stock), virtual items and loot boxes, “blind box” products, etc. the entire economy runs on taking advantage of people with gambling compulsions / addictions.

And to answer your rhetorical-but-not-really question, not all people know they are “the fish” (referring to the quote from the movie Rounders).

by thephyber

3/8/2026 at 4:40:35 AM

It’s a way to pay for valuable information

by ATMLOTTOBEER

3/7/2026 at 9:22:56 PM

Lindsey Graham candidly admitting to being the agent of a foreign country is a National-Security threat.

by int32_64

3/7/2026 at 9:57:27 PM

The Foreign Agents Registration Act has a de facto Israel exception. If it didn’t, half of Congress would be in violation.

by Analemma_

3/8/2026 at 1:24:37 AM

Has the FARA ever been used to prosecute a US official for acting in the interests of any close US ally (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Five Eyes, etc.)?

As I understand it, selective prosecution has always been the rule rather than the exception.

by jasomill

3/7/2026 at 9:35:57 PM

He's not afraid because there are countless others in congress.

by coliveira

3/7/2026 at 8:54:15 PM

I think it's safe to say that beside national security risks. Allowing unrestricted betting on pretty much anything in the world is just not something we should have...

by LucasGenoud

3/7/2026 at 9:23:21 PM

Third order effect on post-AGI economics when those with expensive mortgages lose their jobs to AGI, can no-longer afford them, burn through their savings and get wiped out in a financial market crash because most of them used their RSUs to get mortgages for their homes, which now does not make any sense today.

Then gambling on prediction markets, stocks, crypto etc will be the new normal.

This is post-AGI.

by rvz

3/7/2026 at 9:11:05 PM

This presumes that the nation's security is bolstered by the government's ability to keep secrets. It strikes me that, even if this is true in some ways, the opposite is true in others.

by jMyles

3/7/2026 at 8:48:51 PM

Betting was once a vice overseen by the mob -- and those addicted to it were rightly viewed as pathetic figures, akin to serious alcoholics. Now betting pervades nearly every aspect of Anglosphere life. This transformation, which has taken place over the past 100 years but has really picked up steam over the last 15, has not been an improvement. It's net negative for society, and the evidence on this is very clear.

Prediction markets are the worst and most insidious manifestation of this phenomenon. They reward insider trading and may also induce people to seek outcomes that are undesirable for society at large. (e.g. in tfa.) There's literally no way this experiment ends well -- which is to say that there's no way this ends in "markets" that benefit and enlighten the common man.

I look forward to the pendulum swinging the other way. Even with such a broken political system, it might.

by A_D_E_P_T

3/7/2026 at 8:51:04 PM

Yet another side effect of being automated out of a purposeful life.

by givemeethekeys

3/7/2026 at 9:04:24 PM

The purpose of life is work?

by wutwutwat

3/7/2026 at 9:42:18 PM

Purposeful work. Like improving your community or living space. Decidedly not performative rituals at the widget making factory to make some rich guy even richer.

by denkmoon

3/7/2026 at 9:21:39 PM

Pretty much, yeah. A lot of people don't just want to consume, they derive self-esteem from doing something that is useful for others.

by umanwizard

3/7/2026 at 10:18:11 PM

To whatever extent this is true, one would also expect it to be manipulated by all interested state actors.

by furyofantares

3/8/2026 at 2:37:30 PM

Here’s a trivial case I noticed on IG the other day. News host goes to NBC studios to tape his Colbert Late Night Show appearance. After taping was done a friend shares a polymarket on what he will talk about. But of course he had just finished taping the show and it had yet to air.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTv8QzJkmL2/

by xtiansimon

3/7/2026 at 9:20:17 PM

> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not, it’s safe to assume, a devoted Polymarket user. If he had been, the Iranian leader might still be alive. Hours before Khamenei’s compound in Tehran was reduced to rubble last week, an account under the username “magamyman” bet about $20,000 that the supreme leader would no longer be in power by the end of March.

Good thing that Polymarket gives such a good signal unlike such subtle clues as carrier group movements.

by ReptileMan

3/7/2026 at 8:55:50 PM

> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not, it’s safe to assume, a devoted Polymarket user. If he had been, the Iranian leader might still be alive. Hours before Khamenei’s compound in Tehran was reduced to rubble last week, an account under the username “magamyman” bet about $20,000 that the supreme leader would no longer be in power by the end of March.

I know this is more for the drama than an actual claim, but it made me wonder -- is this bet a remarkable occurence in the data, or just one trade in a sea of similar trades? _Would_ somebody have been able to guess it? I looked for the original market[0], and am surprised by two things:

1. There was lots of activity around that value when the order was placed, so I don't think the trade would have alerted anyone [1].

2. Polymarket lists the trade as happening _19 days ago_, Feb 16! I don't understand why polymarket says it happened feb 16, when all the news I've seen reports it happening just before the strikes. I'm guessing there's a bug in the way polymarket displays past trades?

Note that if polymarket is displaying the history of trades incorrectly, my claim #1 may not hold.

E̶d̶i̶t̶:̶ ̶M̶a̶g̶a̶m̶y̶m̶a̶n̶'̶s̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶y̶m̶a̶r̶k̶e̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶u̶r̶p̶r̶i̶s̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶L̶o̶o̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶_̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶_̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶o̶s̶e̶[̶2̶]̶.̶ ̶A̶m̶ ̶I̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶r̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶a̶t̶a̶?̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶i̶d̶d̶l̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶s̶t̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶_̶a̶r̶e̶n̶'̶t̶_̶ ̶e̶x̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶a̶g̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶;̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶w̶a̶g̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶n̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶f̶f̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶(̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶P̶M̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶T̶h̶a̶i̶l̶a̶n̶d̶,̶ ̶B̶i̶t̶c̶o̶i̶n̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶m̶u̶l̶t̶i̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶d̶a̶t̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶S̶P̶5̶0̶0̶ ̶g̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶o̶w̶n̶,̶ ̶w̶i̶n̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶W̶i̶m̶b̶l̶e̶d̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶)̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶s̶e̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶s̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶r̶e̶a̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶d̶i̶c̶t̶o̶r̶.̶ I was reading the trades ordered by profit, so only the successes were showing. Order by date to see Magamyman's failures. Thanks @stevenwaterman for catching this.

[0] https://polymarket.com/event/khamenei-out-as-supreme-leader-...

[1] https://snipboard.io/DP1MWK.jpg

[2] https://polymarket.com/profile/%40Magamyman

by pinkmuffinere

3/7/2026 at 9:12:02 PM

[2] Is sorted by profit/loss high to low, so you're seeing the first page of highest gains only, which is why it looks like he's always right. If you sort alphabetically / by date then there are losses

by StevenWaterman

3/7/2026 at 9:07:26 PM

>> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not, it’s safe to assume, a devoted Polymarket user. If he had been, the Iranian leader might still be alive. Hours before Khamenei’s compound in Tehran was reduced to rubble last week,

Or you know, be in a bunker dug into the mountains somewhere, rather than being in your official residence? He was a 86 year old man faced with the prospect of living the rest of his life in a bunker, so there's a good chance he wanted to die a martyr.

by gruez

3/7/2026 at 9:37:46 PM

It wasnt just that he was in his official residence, he was having a high level meeting with other senior members of the Iranian government. It seems likely the war started early (normally america strikes in the middle of the night) simply because all the people they wanted to assainate were all in one spot above ground and that was too good an opportunity to pass up.

Its really hard to imagine why anyone would do something that stupid when america just parked an aircraft carrier off your coast and looks to be spoiling for a fight.

by bawolff

3/7/2026 at 10:11:55 PM

He unequivocally stated on many occasions that he wanted to die a martyr

by mkoubaa

3/7/2026 at 9:43:09 PM

Folks, the President announced the attack and rough date ten days in advance.[1] He did the same exact thing in 2025, with strikes beginning on the 61st day after a 60-day deadline.[2]

This particular market wasn’t about the likelihood of a strike but the probability of radical success. It seems at least possible in the circumstances that the Iran Supreme leader chose his own fate, which was inherently predicable and also exactly what I seem to recall him publicly predicting, albeit without a strict deadline.[3]

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86yjnw4x49o

[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-says-he-g...

[3] https://www.malaysianow.com/news/2026/03/01/khamenei-killed-...

by unyttigfjelltol

3/7/2026 at 9:55:54 PM

The site you cite for [3] reads:

"Khamenei, the leader of the great nation of Iran, the freedom seekers of the world and the Islamic nations, has joined the highest paradise and reached his long-cherished wish of martyrdom in the holy month of Ramadan," said an announcement aired on Iranian state television.

Sounds to me like it was made up after the fact.

by dastuer

3/7/2026 at 10:37:02 PM

Extracting an 80 year old from their house is a bit harder than you might expect. Even if their stubborness is going to get them killed.

I personally have difficulty believing Iran didn't know that war was inbound, everyone I talk to was anticipating it within a roughly 3-week window and these are people just working off what they read on internet news. Khamenei might not have known he was going to die that day and if he had his family would probably have been elsewhere. But it seems pretty reasonable to assume that he was purposefully not raising his security in his final days. The narrative win of a calm death vs the perfidious Israeli attack is powerful enough that he must have considered it.

There is an understanding that the strike that took him out also took out a lot of visiting high-level leaders; that'd be quite strong evidence against the idea it was intentional. But the fog of war is thick and it doesn't seem safe to take that occurrence as a given yet.

by roenxi

3/8/2026 at 1:05:03 AM

> personally have difficulty believing Iran didn't know that war was inbound

Khamenei wasn't the only one killed in that meeting. All of the evidence points to Iran having expected America to attack at night. And in fact, that was the plan until we learned about that idiotic meeting.

by JumpCrisscross

3/7/2026 at 10:14:22 PM

In Islam, a Muslim who dies in war is considered a martyr, and it's desirable to die in the month of Ramadan. In other words, it's something that most Muslims want to have happen, but it's not like something we want to make happen. Like I don't want to die right now, but if I were to die, may as well be during Ramadan.

by abustamam

3/7/2026 at 10:09:37 PM

That gives me pause, given what he's been saying about Cuba recently...

by AnimalMuppet

3/7/2026 at 10:38:44 PM

Remember that Trump used the entire SOUTHCOM to focus on Venezuela for months and 2 fleets to focus on Iran for a month (and likely for the next 6). There will likely be lots of “pieces moving on the board” if we are to actively participate in Cuba’s downfall (more than isolating them and cutting off their fuel imports).

by thephyber

3/7/2026 at 10:34:33 PM

You are pretending like it was inevitable that negotiations would fail and that Trump wouldn’t chicken out. Those are the likely alternatives in the betting market.

I would argue that Trump probably wouldn’t have felt confident enough to do this if he wasn’t already running on a high after the Venezuela war going so well for him.

by thephyber

3/7/2026 at 9:03:15 PM

Pretty sure war thunder forums still take the cake on that one. The lulz motive is far higher than the profit motive.

by _3u10

3/7/2026 at 10:12:38 PM

Statistical clueless amateurs found something they did not like, but of course were unable to convert their suspicions into something sound. They do not even think about it. Nevertheless a big sensation was anounced. I am tired of this.

by beyondCritics

3/7/2026 at 11:46:19 PM

In order to demonstrate something exceptional, you have to establish a baseline. This baseline is called the "null hypothesis" in classical testing.

by beyondCritics

3/7/2026 at 10:47:41 PM

Well, the natural thing to do then is to allow cryptocurrency bets on our opponents' actions. The men in their governments will likely eagerly give up valuable information in exchange for money: distributed espionage.

by arjie

3/7/2026 at 10:48:47 PM

At this point the US government is a national security threat (to itself).

by BrenBarn

3/7/2026 at 11:36:04 PM

Can’t read much beyond the beginning, so forgive me if it mentions this and I missed it, but I have no inside information and was looking into placing the exact same bet. I was a little too slow to do it unfortunately for me.

I always thought we were going to strike. We very publicly moved a lot of military assets into the region. Trump had issued a red line about Iran killing protesters, and then they killed protesters, and we all remember how he and everyone else harped on Obama for not following up on his own red line in Syria when they used chemical weapons on their own people.

And most importantly, a few days before it happened, he said he wasn’t happy with the progress of talks. That was when I started figuring out how to get money into polymarket.

All of this was the exact same as the buildup to Venezuela. The only thing shocking is how low the odds were on the market.

While I agree with the thesis, they chose the weakest possible example.

by mattmaroon

3/7/2026 at 8:23:55 PM

These are scraps, so far. Now, what could you do if you had access to both markets and the Executive? About 4 billions, it would seem.

by actionfromafar

3/8/2026 at 9:29:57 AM

Let's bet: Will prediction markets be forbidden at the end of the year?

by amai

3/7/2026 at 8:47:47 PM

It's 100% legal if you're in the inside circle

by mcs5280

3/7/2026 at 9:15:17 PM

Just because it’s not enforced doesn’t make it legal.

by rubyfan

3/7/2026 at 11:39:19 PM

Is there a bet for when Polymarket/Kalshi go kaput? Maybe a bet on each other's platforms? How about for the CEOs to lose their jobs? Or for them to get in an accident?

by ares623

3/7/2026 at 8:42:43 PM

Just another grift for orange man and his posse. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/anonymous-polymarket...

by behole

3/7/2026 at 8:49:14 PM

I always wonder about when there is a cutoff about the grift, i mean there has to be a point when enough is enough. Who cares if its 4 or 5 billions in the end, thats more money one could reasonably spend in a lifetime. What drives this greed?

by quakeguy

3/7/2026 at 8:57:48 PM

Power. People who want power need status, and money is the ultimate symbol. They can never have enough power because of their dark triad personalities.

by i7l

3/7/2026 at 8:59:16 PM

If I understand Trump, he wants to be the richest man in the world. It is another matter if can achieve that. But his ego would definitely want that.

by ivell

3/7/2026 at 11:09:50 PM

The idea of winning. They have to keep winning because the idea of losing threatens their identity, which is in being a winner.

by AnimalMuppet

3/7/2026 at 9:39:07 PM

You could just watch the movement of tankers and jets to the middle east on flight trackers. It was extremely easy to see this coming.

Note: the owner of the Atlantic has ties to Epstein and Israel. They are extremely biased on anything to do with this war in Iran.

by Dig1t

3/7/2026 at 9:47:56 PM

Apologies for going in the weeds on a general concept that is 100% valid, but it expends a couple of paragraphs on this so I must-

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not, it’s safe to assume, a devoted Polymarket user."

We have to assume that he made the choice to be a martyr. He was in his own home at the same time that the entire world could see the enormous buildup of resources the US was placing in the area. Trump did exactly the same tired "will he or won't he" that he has done for various other actions.

An attack was the most obvious event on the planet. This isn't some magical ret-conning, but anyone with a functioning brain could predicted the outcome.

I think the Polymarket angle to this is more that people were betting on whether he would choose existence over martyrdom. He could have hidden in countless places and sent various tirade videos for years, Osama-style, but this 86 year old man just decided to wait for the bombs.

And on Venezuela, anyone who thinks that was just a fantastically successful op is not rational. Clearly Trump had buy-in by either the Russians -- in return for some favours on Ukraine -- or various members in the Venezuela military (or most likely of all, both). Seeing several CH-47s flying over an entirely predictable target area utterly guarantees this.

Venezuela was a coup that levered the US military to fulfil it cleanly. With absolutely and complete certainty.

by llm_nerd

3/7/2026 at 9:58:27 PM

> We have to assume that he made the choice to be a martyr

I don't think we have to assume that. He could have thought the military build up was a bluff. He could have trusted in Iran's defenses to allow him time to find safety. He could have thought his assassination attempt on Trump would pan out. There are a million other could-have's that we could invent, and I don't think "him choosing to be a martyr" is any more (or less) valid than the rest of them.

by spiderice

3/7/2026 at 10:10:51 PM

>He could have thought the military build up was a bluff.

Everyone knew the US was attacking. Iran clearly knew as well.

>He could have trusted in Iran's defenses to allow him time to find safety

Everyone knows what Tomahawks are by now. Everyone knows that the first sign of an attack will be things blowing up around you. Further both Israel and the US have repeatedly performed airstrikes throughout Iran with impunity, including just a few months earlier with zero resistance. No, there is no rational situation where Iran thought their defenses would give cover for an old man in his own palace.

It's infinitely more valid of a supposition to assume he martyred himself.

Weird how this offends some people. It's especially hilarious when we have the classic "Mossad super-masterful strokes figured out that old man was...in his own home"

Like if the US, through masterful intelligence and a giant bunker buster, caught him in some underground complex, then sure. That isn't what happens.

by llm_nerd

3/8/2026 at 6:12:57 AM

Once the odds of a powerful strike get over 10 or 20 percent, staying in your house is choosing martyrdom over safety. I don't know what the actual best prediction would have been, but I don't think those million could-haves add up to a very big percentage that would overturn the above analysis.

by Dylan16807

3/8/2026 at 8:26:45 AM

[dead]

by irenetusuq

3/8/2026 at 1:29:56 PM

[dead]

by sturogers

3/7/2026 at 11:05:33 PM

[dead]

by ClaudioAnthrop

3/7/2026 at 8:54:54 PM

[dead]

by aaron695