[ed_elliott_asc]

Does it need to be regulated? This isn’t pension funds placing bets risking people’s investment money.

People using Polymarket are gambling on pretty random things and must understand the risk , whether it is on major geopolitical events or someone counting cars going through a junction these events can all be manipulated pretty easily.

People want to gamble on random things? Let them.

If anything is regulate the other side, people in government can’t use sites like polymarket because I don’t want them making stupid decisions so bets fall one side or another.

[austinjp]

Polymarket gamblers have pressured at least one journalist regarding reporting of missile strikes. This requires regulation or, as others here have suggested, non-anonymity, maybe other measures too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/18/polymarket-gam...

[soerxpso]

It's already illegal to threaten journalists. In America we generally make bad things illegal, not activities that could become motivation for bad things. Someone threatened me on League of Legends last week. Should we ban the game?

[austinjp]

> It's already illegal to threaten journalists [in] America

Not necessarily, it depends on the pressure and the intent.

> In America we generally make bad things illegal, not activities that could become motivation for bad things.

I didn't mention making anything illegal. I suggested constraining Polymarket and similar.

> Should we ban [X]

I didn't mention banning anything.

[SilasX]

>In America we generally make bad things illegal, not activities that could become motivation for bad things.

Not really, even in America. Like, take alcohol regulation. Your model would be "drunken bar fights are already illegal, so just prosecute that, problem solved."

Except that, historically, there's so much of that that it overwhelms the ability of law enforcement to keep up. So we try to remove the driving factors: "Okay, you can drink in public, but only[1] at these licensed places that are heavily incentivized to prevent fights before they start."

I'm not advocating any particular position, I'm just saying that if there's a persistent situation that heavily incentivizes violence, then it's not unreasonable to push back on that mechanism rather than just try to mop up the violence after the fact. Which specific situations merit that is up for debate, but it shouldn't be controversial that some situations should be handled this way.

[1] Yes, I'm simplifying, just focus on the general point here.

[halapro]

It's not so simple. The game must be fair.

What if 100% of the bets you place in a slot machine go to the owner? It's the exact same thing here.

Slot machines are regulated so the game is fair and they're not simply machines where the rich steal from the poor. Such a machine would be scam by definition.

[ed_elliott_asc]

I'm not a polymarket gambler or a gambler at all really, so I have no skin in this game but why does it have to be fair?

I would say casinos and slot machines are already stealing from the poor and giving to the rich and already a scam, people play them (aside from addicts) because there is a chance they will win, they know not everyone wins.

I'm in favour of people being treated fairly I just think regulation isn't what is required here, more education "play this but the odds are tilted away from you".

[DharmaPolice]

It would actually be better if slot machines never paid out and 100% of their bets went to the house. Very very few people would use them. They're addictive exactly because they do pay out sometimes.

[malfist]

Do you also support sports team members betting that their team will lose the next game?

[ed_elliott_asc]

Hmm interesting, my gut is that i'm not against it. I think in reality it does happen (take a look at Lucas Paqueta in UK soccer) so may as well accept it - you'll never know who has more to lose (win) a player betting their side will lose or a player on the opponent side betting their side will lose so it should even out.

Gambling is a risk, it isn't just the house's edge but anything can go wrong on the day.

[derriz]

I would suggest at least having KYC (know your customer) rules which all banks, financial exchanges and traditional online bookmakers are required to implement would be reasonable for these markets?

At least it would somewhat hinder the type of activity we’ve seen (where journalists are threatened by criminals to withdraw or change their stories) without just banning such betting exchanges outright.

[chii]

I think making the bets not anonymous is sufficient imho.

If a gov't official (including the president) is leaking classified information, there's already laws about that isnt there? (Whether it's effective is another question - i'm assuming it's currently effective).

[ed_elliott_asc]

I think that we are agreeing here, there should be regulation on the government side and laws without regulating what people can bet on.

[diydsp]

>This isn’t pension funds placing bets risking people’s investment

Its potentially much worse: we don't know if the threats and bets are isolated. While diplomacy happens, the threats may very well be exaggerated to create the market opportunity.