[sam0x17]

I'm not even talking about the specific situation. The problem with prediction markets that has been talked about for months is the predictions themselves are being used as an indicator that "thing will happen" and eventually there is so much liquidity on certain markets that the market determines the outcome not the other way around

[geor9e]

Do you have an example of polymarket betters changing the outcome of an event?

[mitthrowaway2]

Here's one:

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/coinbase-ceos-bizarre-final...

[sam0x17]

> I'm not parent commenter, but any example of an event that actually matters? Elections, wars, the economy, healthcare systems, laws, court cases?

I think the point is more that if it's already happening at this level of adoption, and these are only the ones we know about, surely there are many more where this is happening and we don't know, and as adoption increases, it will get worse and worse since the liquidity on the line will be much higher.

[anonym29]

I'm not parent commenter, but any example of an event that actually matters?

Elections, wars, the economy, healthcare systems, laws, court cases?

The example you provided does look like some insider trading type of stuff, just like how 1v1 professional sports players will sometimes intentionally lose after receiving a bribe to do so, but both your example and sports don't really seem to have any kind of meaningful impact on anything or anyone who isn't gambling, no?

[mitthrowaway2]

I don't know. I imagine if someone was going to adjust the timing or targets of strikes in a war in response to a prediction market bet, or the decisions of a high-profile court case etc, they wouldn't say so in public the way the CEO of Coinbase did on that earnings call. It's pretty rare that someone would actually claim they're taking an action specifically with the purpose of altering the outcome of the prediction market bet, rather than giving some other reason. So even if it were happening, the only evidence I might expect to find would be suspicious prediction-market trades around low-probability events.

In situations like this, where you wouldn't expect to see evidence of something even if it were happening, you're basically left to make a judgement based on prior probability. So here that would come down to: is the financial incentive provided by the prediction market high enough relative to the decisionmaker's perceived risk and penalty of being caught? IMO, the answer is currently 'no' for most high-profile cases, but in a future where more money is riding on the bets, or where decisionmakers are insulated from consequences, that could swing to 'yes'.

[anonym29]

The decision-makers don't need change their decision whatsoever to corruptly profit from it, though, they can just place bets on the timeframe or outcome of whatever decision they originally intended to make. Why risk operational disruptions and a greater chance of getting caught when you can still profit exorbitantly from insider trading on your knowledge without incurring those unnecessary risks?

[venusenvy47]

How can we possibly find an example, if the names of the betters aren't public? There are public bets on activities from the IS government that can easily be used by people that control the outcome.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjwz8051y0lo

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gn93292do

[lordnacho]

Not Polymatket, but there's a humorous case of the Sutton FC goalkeeper eating a pork pie on TV, thus resolving a bet on whether he would do so.

[sam0x17]

many many, like that stuff with the "will someone throw something at X basketball game" and then someone kept doing it, etc