4 ms·
I wonder if it has anything to do with this: "Polymarket Paid US Social Media Influencers for Election Content" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-1
by mossTechnician 2y ago
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
"Polymarket Paid US Social Media Influencers for Election Content"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-05/polymarket-paid-us-social-media-influencers-for-election-content https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-05/polymarke...
- legitster 2y agoI mean, in general, being headquartered in a country where your product is illegal is brazenly risky.
- dzhiurgis 2y agoAmazing. Musk is famously anti-short selling, yet put millions against Kamala.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y agoWhat does a political bet have to do with one selling company stock because they think the company will not continue to perform well in the market?
- bayarearefugee 2y agoI don't care enough about Musk to know what his views on short selling are but him betting against Kamala is not remotely similar to short selling. Betting "against" outcome A is absolutely no different than betting "for" outcome B when there are only 2 possible outcomes of the election, its entirely semantics. And there is no unlimited downside to the bet like there (theoretically) is with short selling.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoIt probably has to do with that. They paid for election content, but did not encourage betting. It just looks like general marketing for a platform. A more egregious example of paying for election content is the alleged scheme of a candidates paying for endorsements. To me that seems much more deceptive and fraudulent.