All gross.
I'm just not sure why anyone would take a bet against someone who can single handedly make their side win. It would be like someone making a bet that I won't eat a hot dog for lunch tomorrow. Of course I'm going to eat a hot dog for lunch tomorrow. Why is there anything alarming about that? It's just stupid that anyone is taking the other side of that bet.
The short version is, it's about control and power.
If you create a bet on {person} getting assassinated by {date}, you greatly increase the chances of somebody on the "Yes" side thumbing the scales.
When you put money on the line for events that are influencable, things get dark fast.
Seemingly harmless sports betting is rife with stories about mob members going to extreme lengths to change the outcome of a sporting event.
It's not hard to see how bad a bet like "so and so won't show up to event x" can go. These don't have to be bets about killing or injuring people to result in people being killed or injured to win a bet.
These companies are a pox on society.
Also, in roulette there's nowhere to put your money on whether a countries leader will be dead by the end of the month
Individually, yeah, by all means they can prey on people. But they're on the list of things that have been preying on people for centuries, like alcohol, and all kinds of other things. Ring-fencing casinos has a track record of some success at containing them.
I mean, sure, I'd love to wake up tomorrow and for all of the human race to have advanced to the point that to every last individual we are no longer gambling and that industry vanishes in a puff of smoke. I am as far into the belief that they are immoral as it is practically possible to be. But they are at least a known and knowable risk.
These prediction markets are blindsiding us. We could put up with them for another few decades until we coevolve further with them, or we could just, you know, not. Just end them now. Plus, prediction markets have a certain meta-ness to them that casinos largely lack that will keep them fresh and coevolving their own new ways to predate on us. Casinos have basically reached their final form, prediction markets could take yet more decades to get there and it's possible there isn't a stable endgame with them. Or, again, we could just end them here and now.
Polymarket prediction results can be swayed by whales and differ from reality. Example: they ruled Tesla unsupervised full selfdriving a real usable feature in ~Feb 2026. It still doesn't exist and won't. This decision is far from being the only such one.
Here's the negative externality that no one will care about. There's no reason gamblers won't repeat this stunt, until us poor schmucks who just want an accurate temperature reading have to build a fortified compound in order to do so.
The issue here is you'd need a lot more land because any asphalt near a temp sensor is going to give you bad data.
A few years years ago, there was no conceivable profit motive for interfering with weather sensors on public property. Now there is one.
Can this really be said with a straight face?
Suppose you're an oil company, or a trader with a large position, and "hottest year on record ten years in a row" is bad PR that will make bills you don't like more likely to get passed. Or for that matter a company selling carbon capture stuff who wants to make sure it goes the other way.
Your argument is that people had no existing profit motive to use dirty tricks to influence scientific results/data?
It's going to happen.
It'll happy by proxy too. When they figure 90% of Tesla's or SpaceX's valuation is tied to Elon, suddenly he becomes your mark.
Quite likely it has already happened.
There's been an enormous amount of betting on various military strikes by the Trump administration, much of which looks like insider trading.
Almost certainly there have been insiders with money on the line who were financially motivated to launch lethal attacks, which they might have otherwise paused or delayed.
It's much more effective to make the decision first and the bet second.
What did I say that contradicts this?
> Why almost certainly?
Because I haven't seen any clear reporting with evidence documented down to the level of individual decision-making.
I'm pointing out that the version where the market causes the decision is the much less effective way to do things. So I don't think it's so certain to have happened.
When the decision comes first it's still a problem but it's a very different problem.
I should make this explicit, I guess: If you make the decisions before betting, you don't really care what the market says beforehand, you'll make plenty of money either way.
> the version where the market influences the decision is the much less effective way to do things.
Okay, so two possible scenarios: "market influences decision" and "decision influences market."
1. Polymarket offers a contract called something like: "Will the US launch any lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean on April 30, 2026?" A commander of a drone unit for the US military bets $500 on "yes". At 11:51pm on April 30, he's trying to decide whether or not to issue an order to fire on a boat, or to wait 15 minutes for better visual identification of the target. As a result of his bet on Polymarket, he's strongly incentivized to issue the order right now.
2. It's 11:51pm on April 30. A commander of a drone unit for the US military is reviewing images of a potential target boat. He idly opens a browser tab to Polymarket. Lo and behold, he sees that the odds of "Will the US launch any lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean on April 30, 2026?" are at only 0.3%. He's strongly incentivized to issue an order to strike right now and to quickly buy that Polymarket contract before news of the strike breaks.
Does it matter which of these two scenarios might actually be taking place? I don't think so.
Your decision maker is now going to make decisions differently than they would if they hadn’t made the bet, due to the financial incentive. It hopefully won’t be blatant, but they’re going to be more committed to the original decision.
> Later, a single user would make over $550,000 after betting that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would topple, just moments before his assassination by Israeli forces.
There are roughly 2,500 individual companies listed in the US alone with a market cap that exceeds 1 billion dollars. Tesla's market cap is 1.4 trillion - about 1,000 times the size of all prediction markets put together.
In other words, to the extent this incentive is of societal concern, it is not because of prediction markets - that is the tail wagging the dog.
Edit: to be clear I think these markets are a scourge as they currently operate, but not for this reason.
(1) https://predik.io/en/blog/open-interest-mercados-prediccion-...
Probably automatable, and simply counting on automated systems and panic selling. Might be possible just with the AI package these days (not even requiring a traditional media article).
This is a ridiculously over-broad claim.
First of all, prediction markets shift incentives in a pernicious way; they don't magically erase or override all pre-existing incentive structures.
And secondly, professional athletes of all stripes appear to be receiving a lot more threats of violence from gamblers (including "prediction market traders") than they were a few years ago.
Good luck proving it.
> IIRC, someone bet on a streaker at the super bowl, did the streaking themselves, made 6-figures on the bet, bragged about it publicly, and the market negated the bet and recovered the money.
Yeah, exactly. Far easier to prove and to even get the idea to investigate that person in the first place.
A fortified compound would affect the temperature reading.
Building Byzantine fault tolerance into absolutely everything is expensive, and makes everything we do and buy more expensive. It would be better and cheaper to rely on social trust, if that's possible-- and it was possible before these gambling sites. Prediction markets are burning social trust as fuel to make profit, they should be heavily taxed, the way polluters are taxed, as destroyers of the commons.
I can reasonably test that the bolt is in a locked position every time I close the door and turn handle on the lock. But a single remote sensor could have malfunctioned or simply be out of calibration a few degrees.
If the actual temperature at the airport is important to any set of users enough so that the difference between it being 18 or 22 deg C is relevant, one should expect that there be at least 3 sensors (much like clocks) and assuming variances between the 3 sensors are within tolerance an average of the 3 temperatures is taken.
In a bit of expensive equipment I own it happens to have 4 temperature and pressure sensors, located in two different locations on the unit. All of them generally disagree with each other on the exact temperature by around 0.1 C, which is fine for my use of it.
Unlike computing systems, the physical world is a shared mutable environment. It is effectively impossible to lock people out so that you can get a reliable, clean measurement even when people are not intentionally sabotaging the data model.
There are ways to robustly clean this up analytically but it is largely beyond the capabilities of current tech stacks.
Example of this?
You're right that this isn't a technical problem, it's a social one. This is why most sports leagues simply banned betting... until recently, now that gambling companies have bought their way in. The players always end up manipulating games.
Clickbait headline FWIW.
Telegaph is a disreputable tabloid. There are better sources.
https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph:1c00dcc26094b...
I believe that these are the specific Polymarket bets in question:
April 6 (https://polymarket.com/event/highest-temperature-in-paris-on...): this appears to have been something of a "test run", since the odds weren't particularly lopsided until it suddenly spiked in the evening local time.
April 15 (https://polymarket.com/event/highest-temperature-in-paris-on...): the odds were quite lopsided in favor of 18°C, until suddenly reversing in the evening. This is presumably where the fraudsters made all their money.
See https://misinfounderload.substack.com/p/tales-from-predictio...
Polymarket in particular started out using crypto and off shoring with a "not legal in the US, wink wink" to get try and dodge regulations.
Man I hate headline writers…
We’re I contracted to (legally and ethically) red team a temperature station, a “battery powered hair dryer” would be pretty low on my list of techniques for a number of reasons. First attempts would involve mirrors - parabolic or otherwise- to heat the device from a distance without potentially affecting wind speed / direction sensors.
Or you could hold it until it ticks 18.9 or whatever the bet was.
Try to scale this anywhere from hairdryer usage to trip temp sensors to nuclear bombs going off in poor countries.
A depressing thought: it will only tip in favor of common good when the probability of something that we today consider “normal” becomes so small that betting on that finally becomes profitable to insiders with influence. Imagine that world…
[0] No, I’m not going to change my writing style because it is considered a “tell” of LLM use.
Make of that what you will.
Even the US Government has executive and legislative officials profiting from secret information they know from doing their duties.
I wonder when someone who does cloud seeding will place a bet about rain at some unlikely time and place.
Or the next large forest fire.
Each year, one of my state's legislators introduces a bill to outlaw chemtrails [0]. It never leaves committee. This year, he added the plot of Termination Shock [1] to his bill. This proposed legislation already includes "cloud seeding" as a crime. Penalty of $500k/day and each day is a separate crime.
0 - https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/hb60.html
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)#
It's just a pity it basically depends on all participants in the prediction market being basically unaware that they are participating in a prediction market, and being oblivious to the incentives to create the outcomes they are predicting by the very act of predicting it with money.
But other than that minor detail, that little minor catastrophic flaw in the foundation, it's a beautiful argument.
I think we can call it as a society. It's a failure. We can go back to banning them, not just for moral reasons, but just pragmatic ones. The theory doesn't work. The supposed benefits don't manifest, and "unanticipated" costs to everyone do. We did the experiment. (Again.) We can close this out now.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/two-southeastern-colorado...
Wrecked rain gauges. Whistleblowers. Million-dollar payouts and manhunts.
guyzero•1h ago
8note•1h ago
Groxx•1h ago
>A temperature of 18C was seen as a 99.6pc probability before the temperature spiked later in the day.
99.6% of them didn't take the insane bet. And at least one of those 0.4% (by value? count? idk) decided to cheat.
jjice•8m ago
I don't think the actual bet was insane, but the concept of betting on the weather is insane.
bloppe•1h ago
mcmcmc•1h ago
tantalor•49m ago
thimabi•1h ago
The whole “prediction market” charade is increasingly proving to lend itself to abuse. I hope regulations catch up with it soon, otherwise more shenanigans will follow.
VectorLock•1h ago
bloppe•1h ago
thenewnewguy•1h ago
neonstatic•1h ago
alaudet•1h ago
vizzier•54m ago
This vastly increases the barrier to entry for the normal person though. Is your position that just because laws don't work 100% of the time we shouldn't bother with them?
alaudet•34m ago
Dylan16807•29m ago
But wow what a useless way of conversing that is. They asked because it's unclear what you're implying. So could you please clarify if you think regulation would be useful? Or should be done despite being futile? Or shouldn't be done? I can only think of those three answers, is there another?
alaudet•21m ago
daheza•54m ago
palmotea•51m ago
Isn't cryptocurrency (for the most part) very traceable? If you make it too hard and risky for most people to participate in, you'll limit the negative effects. You could probably quite effectively discourage it by sanctioning any transactions with one of these markets, you've got some opportunity because at some point the cryptocurrency needs to be converted to/from cash.
Of course, you'd have to dedicate some investigative and enforcement resources to the effort.
If to bet on a prediction market you have to both use a VPN and launder your money like you're a drug dealer, and I don't think many people would do it.
ImPostingOnHN•26m ago
Mostly no. If you're connected it to a banking account, or other KYC platform, maybe, but the folks capable of doing that are part of the same administration supposedly doing the manipulation, so they would not investigate themselves.
Indeed, they are actually fighting against those trying to regulate it [0]
Indeed, the president's son works for Polymarket, and has invested in it [1]
0 –https://www.npr.org/2026/04/02/nx-s1-5771635/trump-cftc-kals...
1 – https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/08/polymarke...
palmotea•17m ago
> Mostly no. If you're connected it to a banking account, or other KYC platform, maybe,
But if you're (say) and American betting on it, the money almost certainly flows through one of those entities. And if you're using bitcoin the ledger is totally public, so you could track it from Coinbase (KYC) to whatever wallet the prediction market is using to accept payment (or vice versa).
> Indeed, they are actually fighting against those trying to regulate it [0]
Choosing to "do something about it" or not is a different question than can something be done at all. I was addressing the latter.
Tangurena2•8m ago
lostlogin•56m ago
Svoka•50m ago
whatisthiseven•49m ago
e28eta•18m ago
Turns out the US federal regulator is not doing their job, and is actively trying to prevent US states from imposing regulations.
WarmWash•1h ago
People still show up compulsively everyday.
gowld•1h ago
hx8•1h ago
bloppe•1h ago
seanalltogether•1h ago
christkv•1h ago
somenameforme•52m ago
For instance chess wagers on polymarket are super interesting because it's far more informative than a chess engine, even though engines are much stronger than any human. The nuance is that engines don't appreciate human factors like how easy/hard a position is to play. And so an engine might just say 'dead draw', whereas a strong human can say 'nah, white has very good winning chances here' - and the polymarket wagers end up reflecting that. And so there it's mostly strong players making money from people who think turning on their engine and betting based on what it says is something nobody else must have thought of.
skipants•28m ago