3 ms·

Imagine any business decision that would strongly benefit from e.g. J.D. Vance not becoming the acting president and Trump remaining in his place for the rest

Imagine any business decision that would strongly benefit from e.g. J.D. Vance not becoming the acting president and Trump remaining in his place for the rest of the year/term. Does making such a decision "essentially be offering a reward for someone to prove you wrong", those someone's being your business competitors/rivals? Or you could even dial the timeline back to right before the last elections, where this question could literally be about the Republicans literally losing their candidate due to sudden expiration. My point is, if someone sees that you hedge financial well-being on e.g. you country not slipping into the civil war over the next few years, and orchestrates exactly that to profit themselves — this is not your moral failing, it's theirs, and even the "well, you kinda tempted them, technically" argument is bogus.

nickelcitymario 2y ago
I don't think those are the same thing? For example, I'm in Canada. There's a trade war going on. Every business in Canada is now having to hedge their bets for whether and how long and how bad the trade war is going to be. And we all know the trade war is being driven by one person. So yes, "what are the odds of a change in who is running the country?" is part of that risk assessment. That's not the same thing as saying, "here's $100k if something were to happen to the man in the funny hat". Technically, you could construe both as hedging your bets. But in the first scenario I'm just making a decision for my business. In the other, I'm offering a reward to make it happen. Now, that being said, I could see the water getting murky for a publicly traded company that positions itself in such a way that it would truly benefit from such an event, because then a violent member of the public could buy their stock and benefit financially from commitment that violence. But that's not what we're talking about with polymarket. Polymarket is all about tying a specific financial outcome to a specific real world event that people could choose to influence. It incentivizes outcomes. Some outcomes would be hard to influence this way. For example, I don't think any bet of any size would influence who would win an election. But if the bet was "It would be terrible if someone did X, I'm betting $$$ that no one will", then the only question is whether the $$$ is worth it to someone with the ability to commit X.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Just scale your argument up, you don’t think it’s worth it to someone to influence an election? What’s all that money for then?
  - nickelcitymario 2y ago
    I'm not questioning whether it would be worth it. I'm questioning how that would work, and am very much open to being wrong here. I just don't see how it would work. For example... let's say I bet a trillion dollars that the Canadian Communist Party (a party on the extreme fringes that few Canadians even realize exists) would NOT win the election. How would that incentive lead to them winning? What could anyone do to make that reality happen in order to claim the money? That's not to say there aren't other ways to use money to influence an election. Of course there is. But you need to spend it in the run-up to the election, not offer it as a prize afterwards. Am I being naive? (A: Probably. Wouldn't be the first time.)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bloomingkales 2y ago
      Throw a baby in water and it can swim, no naiveté anywhere. 1) Putting out a bet that a vulnerable person will take is immoral. But that’s not what we are discussing. 2) How would putting out such a bet, a call option, lead to hedging? 3) This can turn into a long ass discussion that I’m not sure you wanna go on.
      - nickelcitymario 2y ago
        I've mulled over your comment for a couple days and I still don't really understand what you're saying... feel free not to reply in light of the delay (or to stop the conversation from spiralling), but: > Throw a baby in water and it can swim, no naiveté anywhere. Are you suggesting I'm doing something akin to intentionally throwing a baby in water to see if it drowns? > 1) Putting out a bet that a vulnerable person will take is immoral. But that’s not what we are discussing. Agreed... I'm just asking if Polymarket can effectively be used as an assassination market, and if so, isn't that a bad thing? > 2) How would putting out such a bet, a call option, lead to hedging? I fully admit I'm not an investment expert, so maybe I'm not using the term correctly. But in my mind, "hedging" is putting in place some type of mechanism to benefit or at least limit your losses in the case of your preferred outcome not working out. So in this scenario, a business person could simultaneously make decisions on the assumption of an ongoing trade war, as well as make other decisions that would only be beneficial in the case of the end of the trade war due to someone's demise. (For clarity, I'm NOT advocating anyone's demise. I'm a peacenik and am not cheering for harm to fall on anyone. I'm simply discussing hypotheticals in an attempt to understand IF Polymarket could be used as an assassination market, and purely because if it could, I feel that should probably be regulated.) > 3) This can turn into a long ass discussion that I’m not sure you wanna go on. You're probably right, but I'm not sure where you feel this conversation is headed.
sb057 2y ago
>My point is, if someone sees that you hedge financial well-being on e.g. you country not slipping into the civil war over the next few years, and orchestrates exactly that to profit themselves — this is not your moral failing, it's theirs, and even the "well, you kinda tempted them, technically" argument is bogus. As a third party, I don't particularly care who's in the wrong if I'm living in the middle of a civil war.

nickelcitymario 2y ago

I don't think those are the same thing? For example, I'm in Canada. There's a trade war going on. Every business in Canada is now having to hedge their bets for whether and how long and how bad the trade war is going to be. And we all know the trade war is being driven by one person. So yes, "what are the odds of a change in who is running the country?" is part of that risk assessment. That's not the same thing as saying, "here's $100k if something were to happen to the man in the funny hat". Technically, you could construe both as hedging your bets. But in the first scenario I'm just making a decision for my business. In the other, I'm offering a reward to make it happen. Now, that being said, I could see the water getting murky for a publicly traded company that positions itself in such a way that it would truly benefit from such an event, because then a violent member of the public could buy their stock and benefit financially from commitment that violence. But that's not what we're talking about with polymarket. Polymarket is all about tying a specific financial outcome to a specific real world event that people could choose to influence. It incentivizes outcomes. Some outcomes would be hard to influence this way. For example, I don't think any bet of any size would influence who would win an election. But if the bet was "It would be terrible if someone did X, I'm betting $$$ that no one will", then the only question is whether the $$$ is worth it to someone with the ability to commit X.

bloomingkales 2y ago
Just scale your argument up, you don’t think it’s worth it to someone to influence an election? What’s all that money for then?
- nickelcitymario 2y ago
  I'm not questioning whether it would be worth it. I'm questioning how that would work, and am very much open to being wrong here. I just don't see how it would work. For example... let's say I bet a trillion dollars that the Canadian Communist Party (a party on the extreme fringes that few Canadians even realize exists) would NOT win the election. How would that incentive lead to them winning? What could anyone do to make that reality happen in order to claim the money? That's not to say there aren't other ways to use money to influence an election. Of course there is. But you need to spend it in the run-up to the election, not offer it as a prize afterwards. Am I being naive? (A: Probably. Wouldn't be the first time.)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    Throw a baby in water and it can swim, no naiveté anywhere. 1) Putting out a bet that a vulnerable person will take is immoral. But that’s not what we are discussing. 2) How would putting out such a bet, a call option, lead to hedging? 3) This can turn into a long ass discussion that I’m not sure you wanna go on.
    - nickelcitymario 2y ago
      I've mulled over your comment for a couple days and I still don't really understand what you're saying... feel free not to reply in light of the delay (or to stop the conversation from spiralling), but: > Throw a baby in water and it can swim, no naiveté anywhere. Are you suggesting I'm doing something akin to intentionally throwing a baby in water to see if it drowns? > 1) Putting out a bet that a vulnerable person will take is immoral. But that’s not what we are discussing. Agreed... I'm just asking if Polymarket can effectively be used as an assassination market, and if so, isn't that a bad thing? > 2) How would putting out such a bet, a call option, lead to hedging? I fully admit I'm not an investment expert, so maybe I'm not using the term correctly. But in my mind, "hedging" is putting in place some type of mechanism to benefit or at least limit your losses in the case of your preferred outcome not working out. So in this scenario, a business person could simultaneously make decisions on the assumption of an ongoing trade war, as well as make other decisions that would only be beneficial in the case of the end of the trade war due to someone's demise. (For clarity, I'm NOT advocating anyone's demise. I'm a peacenik and am not cheering for harm to fall on anyone. I'm simply discussing hypotheticals in an attempt to understand IF Polymarket could be used as an assassination market, and purely because if it could, I feel that should probably be regulated.) > 3) This can turn into a long ass discussion that I’m not sure you wanna go on. You're probably right, but I'm not sure where you feel this conversation is headed.

sb057 2y ago

>My point is, if someone sees that you hedge financial well-being on e.g. you country not slipping into the civil war over the next few years, and orchestrates exactly that to profit themselves — this is not your moral failing, it's theirs, and even the "well, you kinda tempted them, technically" argument is bogus. As a third party, I don't particularly care who's in the wrong if I'm living in the middle of a civil war.