[derangedHorse]

> But your comment very much reads like you think "Iran strikes Israel on March 10" at 25% odds is what in fact caused Iran to strike Israel on March 10

I don't know how you extrapolated that from the parent's comment. It literally said nothing about the cause and effect of this particular event.

Knowing the odds in a prediction market IS a big part of the problem brought up in the linked article though (and the bets themselves). Knowing how much can be made from being right creates an upper-bound on what a financially-rational malicious actor will spend in trying to change the outcome.

[adrianmonk]

Their comment proposed something that would "be the answer here".

What does "here" mean? It's logical to expect "here" to refer to a scenario that includes cases like the one in the article. If it's some scenario that excludes cases like the one in the article, then it's not actually relevant to the discussion.

(Tangents are OK. It's just confusing if they're introduced with phrasing that makes them sound like they're not tangents.)

[Mogzol]

"here" in that comment is not referring to any specific scenario. It is referring to the problem discussed in the sentence immediately following it, that public prediction markets can shape the outcome of the events they are predicting.

[geor9e]

>how you extrapolated that

I wasn't extrapolating - it was the literal meaning of the words. The context was that someone commented "shouldn't be called prediction markets, they should be called outcome-shaping markets" in direct reply to "Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me over…[the prediction market "Iran strikes Israel on March 10"]. I interpret that as polymarket gamblers outcome-shaped Iran striking Israel. It was at 25% odds when they struck. I don't think the commenter actually meant that literally, which is why I asked them to clarify. I'm just doing my best here.