[xiphias2]

There's an easy way for polymarket to have a nice office in a nice city in USA: legalize it there and have nice enough regulations and incentives for it to move there.

It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore.

But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $15B market is NPR's goal with this article.

[soraminazuki]

While you're at it, let's legalize pig butchering scams too.

"It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore. But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $75B market is NPR's goal with this article."

[BowBun]

Good on NPR. These markets are a cancer on society and should be outlawed further.

[alchemist1e9]

Does anyone have a good source that details these negative effects? I’m not doubting they exist, I mean gambling in general has many negative externalities, but I’m just interested in identifying the cancer aspects more specifically.

[shermantanktop]

Would you go to a cancer doctor if you knew they were betting on Polymarket as to whether you would do well in your cancer treatment?

Polymarket appears to have people who have both the ability to shape outcomes and anonymously profit on those outcomes.

[Barrin92]

>but I’m just interested in identifying the cancer aspects more specifically.

the most obvious and maybe most concerning one is military related insider trading. Just two weeks ago a guy was sentenced for using classified information to gamble, which mind you is the literal point of the market but from the perspective of US military security is a disaster. In addition military bets apparently pay out significantly more than regular bets, suggesting more insider trading. The idea isn't too far fetched that someone could push to carry out or botch an operation to cash out on a betting market at which point we're in dystopian novel territory I guess.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/military-insiders-may-be...

[sophrosyne42]

I have yet to see an argument against them that isn't more than personal disgust

[otterley]

How hard are you looking? "I haven't seen arguments" doesn't mean much if you're not looking for them. You might as well have had a blindfold on. It's as meaningful as saying "I haven't seen arguments as to why Rust eliminates memory safety bugs."

Here's an example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230628/

This is another excellent article that discusses some of the problems, and has links to other such articles: https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/polymarket-kalshi-bett...

[sophrosyne42]

I'm not looking, I am sharing my observations on what people here and other discussion forums tend to be saying.

I don't really see what you have presented as an "argument" against polymarket. [1] tells us that it has costs and benefits. Well everything has costs and benefits, but those are subjective anyway. That is not an argument against it and cannot be, because no science can tell you what is good or bad (i.e. what counts as benefit or cost), let alone whether the good outweighs the bad. [2] tells us that polymarket exhibits the same property as any other securities market, which is that only a very small amount of players tend to make a profit. Again, that is not an argument against it unless you want to include some kind of resentment or digust that some profit more than others.

Inequality of profits is both expected and unconcerning. The social function of the stock exchange is not to ensure everyone receives a fair or equal profit, but to ensure that the pricing of ventures and assets is correctly (as is possible) adjusted to expected future demand of consumers. For polymarket, the function is to express information about expectations of future events. There are straightforward economics reasons why polymarket and similar institution tends towards expressing our expectations about future events.

[otterley]

The social costs of gambling, particularly compulsive gambling, cannot be so easily dismissed. I would encourage you to visit your local Gamblers’ Anonymous group or seek out addicts’ stories of loss and despair to get a fuller picture of it.

As for expected losses, yes, there is a legitimate trade in securities in which some will earn money from their investments and some will lose money from them. Securities like stocks, bonds, derivatives, commodities, and so forth have real things of value underneath them, like business income and stuff made from the commodities. (And it’s not a minority who earn long-term gains from these; there are entire pension schemes covering millions of people that are funded from them from 401(k)s to TIAA.)

Predictions, on the other hand, are valued solely based on human estimations. That’s not in itself a problem, but the issue is that predictions markets, unlike securities markets, are not regulated. Compare the fact that insider trading of securities is illegal and punished with fines and imprisonment, while in a predictions market, insider trading is incentivized and occurs with unsurprising frequency (e.g. big wins by a privileged few who bet on the timing of military actions). Market manipulation is the problem, not that some will make the wrong bets. The rules and conditions of the game must be fair, even if the outcome of the game isn’t.

And I haven’t even begun to mention the issue of the things you can bet on in prediction markets that are ethically problematic, like the probability of harm (including death) occurring to someone or a group of people.

There was a recent episode of Last Week Tonight on the subject; John Oliver’s team expresses these concerns with more humor and better framing than I can give myself:

https://youtu.be/ZN4njIQcSR4?si=ocpAaKnijf7AUrOp

[sophrosyne42]

> The social costs of gambling, particularly compulsive gambling, cannot be so easily dismissed.

You might have noticed that I was not dismissing the costs of gambling. I was pointing out that merely pointing to the cost does not establish that a thing should not exist or that it should be regulated. Just as pointing to the benefit does not establish the opposite. Rather, that depends on whether one regards the benefits as worth the costs, which is not something established scientifically, but is a political matter based on your preferences and ideology.

> The rules and conditions of the game must be fair, even if the outcome of the game isn’t.

What counts as fair depends on the standard you use. I say what is fair that which serves a social function. Insider trading serves a social function because it more efficiently communicates knowledge about production to others. The arbitrage of insider trading which people abhor motivates insiders to eliminate those information asymmetries by engaging in insider trading. The specific profit that insider trading endows to insiders which people lambast as unfair is, in fact, the source of its fairness, because it communicates knowledge previously unknown to the market.

Communication of knowledge is also a productive activity. Laws which restrict it are unfair because they preserve or limit the means by which information asymmetries are eliminated. Laws against insider trading force information asymmetries to remain, causing a permanent rent to exist. The insiders, rather than reaping a temporary profit that communicates information, now are motivated to benefit from their information in ways that do not share it with society at large; their insider information becomes an economic rent, but one without any social function. This is quite unfair.

The social function of prediction markets is similar to that of insider trading. If you want to perpetuate unfair rentseeking, then please go ahead and regulate it.

[guizadillas]

why would they do that if the whole business depends on not having regulations?

[sophrosyne42]

Which regulations in particular? All businesses rely on governments not choking them into nonexistence by having regulations that harm that business. Regulations are not an amorphus blob. There are other regulations that would also benefit a business to enable its existence, but we would not say (or should not say) that "the whole business relies on having regulations," because that is being intentionally vague about what the regulations in question actually are. The way you phrase it almost implied there is inherently something dangerous or suspect about something that is universal about how regulations can effect businesses.