[tomtomtom777]

This is a nice overview, but please remove the PolyMarket indicator. It is an obscene prediction mechanism as it creates horrible financial incentives to a war situation. Its degenerate effects have been featured here before. [1]

Let's not condone "measurements" that are effectively ways for people to gain money on important political decisions, affecting the lives of many people.

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822

[DaedalusII]

why dont UK start enforcing the Marine Insurance Act 1745 to combat this or the Life insurance act maybe 1775

this law literally make it illegal to gamble on marine risk that you do not have direct economic interest in

[colechristensen]

Are they? Is there a prediction market available in the UK which allows you to place these bets? They're regulated like gambling there.

[roryirvine]

Bookmakers and betting exchanges regulated in the UK have always been pretty careful about not adding unlawful markets.

Anything that relies directly or indirectly on the death of a real person is covered outlawed by the Life Assurance Act, so you've never been able to bet on things like fatal crashes in an F1 race or the date of the start of the next monarch's reign.

The Marine Insurance Act is a new one on me, but I've never seen anything which would obviously violate that. There's plenty of spread betting on oil, but mostly on prices and volumes, not the fate of individual cargoes.

[nodesocket]

By this logic would you also consider trading OIL (USO) and Palantir a "obscene" market.

[tomtomtom777]

Actually yes. I put my money in things I would like to see shape the future, which I think is what investment should be about: shaping the future.

But disregarding this admittedly niche attitude; it's not the same thing. If you're opening bets on the ships being bombed before a certain date, you're opening incentives for people to do so. Although buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives.

[trhway]

>you're opening incentives for people to do so

how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing? I'd even argue that sinking one ship affects say 10 people of the crew who most probable will survive in the warm Gulf waters whereis sinking a company may affect many people life outcomes probably causing a number of indirect deaths. CDS of 2008 would be similar example.

>buying OIL or Palantir is morally questionable, it does not create such direct incentives

it creates direct incentives to suppress competitors - wind and solar energy for OIL, and whoever Palantir competitors are.

Wrt. "Hormuz open" - does the "open" definition includes the new fee Iran would be taking for the strait traverse (something like $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder)

[herewulf]

> $1/barrel, nice for Iran, how come that they had't implemented such an idea before? one can only wonder

Probably someone would have bombed their country of they had done that before. That and the reverse are pretty basic assumptions..

[tomtomtom777]

> how about short-selling of stocks, isn't it the same thing?

Yes. That's why it's illegal to short-sell your stocks just before you announce that your company is broke.

There are no such regulations when betting on a bomb dropping on a boat.

[nodesocket]

Shaping the future for “good” is not investing. That is ESG and if you value capital and capital appreciation ESG has been proven not to be a solid strategy. See also altruistic capitalism with such moral people as Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, Trevor Milton and Adam Neumann. Solid list of moral people shaping the future.

[sharmajai]

Who said investing is _only_ for "capital and capital appreciation"? It can also be for social good.

[tomtomtom777]

Wow. I am not sure how to respond to this as you seem to have a completely different mindset. You mean to say it is "proven" not to be a solid strategy as in not maximizing profit?

Surely, you acknowledge that funding something is a rather direct way of actively supporting it. It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future. If you buy OIL to make money, you are still responsible for the additional investment made in oil, and are still shaping the future, whether you like it or not.

[DwnVoteHoneyPot]

No, you're wrong. Oil producers produce oil... Consumers consume oil. In between the producers and the consumers, it doesn't matter whether or not trader A sells a barrel of oil to B, then B sells to C, and C sells it someone else. All of the A to B to C is net zero.

All of the money comes from consumers. The money may change hands 100 times in between, but the money from consumers goes to producers.

If you purchase any products which included petroleum in your life, whether it's a house, car (EV or not), or stretchy clothes, that is what funds the oil producers. That where the money goes into the system, including to investors as return.

[nodesocket]

> It is your money and your choice of what you choose to invest it in, and thus how you choose to shape the future.

Absolutely, but I believe you are conflating investing vs donating. The literal definition of investing is:

> Allocating money (or capital) with the expectation of generating a return or profit over time.

[tomtomtom777]

The fact that is used to make profit doesn't absolve us from any moral judgement. Buying stocks of a company improves its financial position allowing it to grow.

Would you buy stocks of ClusterBombsInc over CureForCancerInc because it has slightly better prospects?

[Invictus0]

The ticker is USO, not OIL, and it's abundantly clear that you have no idea how it works.

[tomtomtom777]

I am responding to someone that used OIL presumably because it is - although incorrect - more clear as an example for those that are not into trading.

[mvdtnz]

Oil futures or any other commodity purchase that doesn't result in the buyer taking actual physical ownership of what they purchase is an obscene gambling market with perverse incentives yes correct.

[isubkhankulov]

How will commodity producers (oil companies, farmers) hedge their risk / stabilize their prices without speculators and their “perverse incentives”?

[broken-kebab]

We will gather special people, very wise, and completely honest. They'll form a committee, and we will call it Gosplan, comrade!

[DaedalusII]

by this logic investing in SAFEs is obscene gambling with perverse incentives and we should shut down the venture capital industry

[auntienomen]

The problem with prediction markets is fundamentally that they're unregulated.

Modern equities and futures markets are highly evolved and rather carefully regulated systems. We've spent centuries learning what the failure modes are and how to guard against them. It's never perfect, it's never going to be perfect -- it's fundamentally a voting system -- but in general, we get liquidity and price discovery at a relatively low cost, while avoiding fraudulent and evil behavior like wash trading and criminal profit laundering.

These new "prediction markets" have been put in place without any of those hard-earned protections. And surprise, they're rife with dirty trick and dirty money.

[nodesocket]

Agree 100% that prediction markets are the wild-wild-west with no insider trading protections, pump and dump, and no oversight. It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis.

[watwut]

>It’s perverting the wisdom of the crowd and efficient market thesis.

I mean, looking at futures and stocks now, I dont believe in those anymore anyway.

[nodesocket]

typical HN comment when it comes to finance and the stock market. Over and over again the wisdom of the HN crowd is wrong in regards to stocks. Intel at its bottom (they are done, and doomed, listening to main stream media) perfect time to buy and load up. This has occurred over and over again in my 15 years being on HN, almost always they call a bottom.

[watwut]

Have you seen what they do every time half sleeping Trump farts another truth social post?

[Octoth0rpe]

Yep

[micromacrofoot]

objectively so

[foxes]

Yes

[antonvs]

Why would you not? Unless you literally don't care about damaging our planet and civilization in the interests of your own personal profit.

[colechristensen]

At this point efficient pricing of energy is a strong motivator for environmental causes. Solar is ridiculously cheaper than fossil fuels and not subject to geopolitical risk. And once you have solar panels you've got energy for decades.

Carbon-related environmentalism and greed now go hand in hand.

[zeofig]

I agree polymarket is "bad", but it's also highly relevant and should absolutely be included in this web page.

[afavour]

Why is it highly relevant? It’s a bunch of people betting on the outcome.

[furyofantares]

I've spent years watching prediction markets and finding them to be, by a wide margin, the most accurate way for me to understand the world. It is not remotely close.

It sucks that they're going mainstream, providing incentives to bad actors to profit from their power, and it sucks that they've gone so heavily for the predatory gambling market to boot.

I really hate this duality.

[verdverm]

> the most accurate way for me to understand the world

Are you sure it's not survivorship bias or similar? I've seen multiple trend lines that are very confident only to switch to the opposite outcome at the very end.

[pgodzin]

Are you sure you're not the one seeing the survivorship bias? Something that is 10% likely to happen ends up switching to the opposite outcome at the very end 1/10 times. There are thousands of prediction markets up at any given time, so there are going to be plenty of examples of unlikely events happening.

But there is plenty of research on how well-calibrated they are. For example, https://polymarket.com/accuracy

[verdverm]

Prediction markets, like many other micro-financialization trends, is unhealthy for society. I'm not going to trust research from the very company selling the product. History provides ample examples of how that works without the need to gamble on it.

I would invite you to look into the statistics on foreclosures, bankruptcy, and gambling hotline traffic which compare jurisdictions that have allowed this stuff vs not. Those with demographic breakdowns help to show those most at risk.

[michaelt]

> it's also highly relevant

Polymarket has $5 million of wagers on "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by end of April?"

The toll Iran charges for safe passage is $2 million per ship, and at current prices such a ship would be carrying about $200 million of oil. Oh, and we live in a world where a single billionaire will happily spend $200 million to influence politics.

The polymarket number merely shows that nobody's paid to make it higher or lower yet.

[voidfunc]

People don't matter, only outcomes

[FrustratedMonky]

> "obscene"

And yet, it is the wisdom of the crowds. The crowds being obscene.

Aren't we all constantly hitting re-fresh for updates, and making predictions.

The prediction markets are just consolidating that 'desire'.

[tomtomtom777]

Well, it would be if everyone betting wouldn't have an influence on the outcome. That's "wisdom of the crowds". But what if the people putting money on the Strait being closed are the same that close them? Surely, that's no longer the wisdom of the crowds at play. Just perverse incentives.

[FrustratedMonky]

I agree. Maybe an un-expected outcome.

Who could have foreseen that a government/person would actually blatantly start a war, and manipulate bombing raids in order to manipulate a market, without being charged with a crime himself.

In sports betting, it seems obvious if a player throws a game.

In a war? Surely nobody would do this, right? Who could imagine it.

[verdverm]

> In sports betting, it seems obvious if a player throws a game.

On the other hand, since you can bet on individual pitches, you no longer have to throw the game, just the right pitch at the right time. A couple of players were caught, but who knows how widespread this really is...

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46917665/mlb-betting-gua...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/two-current-major-leagu...

The focus on making money above all else, as a cultural dynamic, is degrading the human experience. It increasingly seeps into more aspects of our lives and is part of the broader Trustpocalypse.

[antonvs]

> Who could have foreseen

Economists. They even have a term for this, dating back to the late 1800s: "moral hazard".

Polymarket creates moral hazard when participants can profit from outcomes they can influence.

[tomtomtom777]

You don't have to imagine some giant conspiracy. Fact is, that everyone can make a bet, and there are a lot of people with knowledge and influence in the political decisions made.

In sports, at least the outcome is only effected by the sportsmen. Here, who knows which and how many people have inside knowledge and influence that they can use that to their financial advantage?

[FrustratedMonky]

Yeah. I have to agree. My view has changed in last week.

I never imagined that markets could be so corrupted by those in power, without some other consequences somehow balancing out. Like being arrested, or removed from office.

Forget PolyMarket. We literally have bets being made on oil futures, directly before a tweet by the president. Openly profiting on direct minute by minute manipulation. Openly corrupt.

[heavyset_go]

Putting bounties on people's heads and public lynchings are the wisdom of crowds and its obscenity in action.

[FrustratedMonky]

Humans need entertainment.

Running Man was a prediction, coming true.

[ryanschaefer]

For me, I had a similar reaction to the original commenter.

I thought about it more and realized it’s the “via Polymarket” tag on it. It reads like an advertisement. I don’t need to know the exact market the figure is from. Someone could even combine multiple ones and I still wouldn’t want to know.