It's a funny balance between insiders and outsiders. I would say for events like this, it's not even clear where line is, in a way that is very clear for public

It's a funny balance between insiders and outsiders. I would say for events like this, it's not even clear where line is, in a way that is very clear for public companies. Clearly, a staffer in the MoD who knows what's going on and places a "bet" is bad. But is "private" information even well defined here? If a well funded HF asks 50 staffers "is Iran going to be invaded today", they all say "of course not, we're negotiating" but 3 look uncomfortable, is that MNPO? If a civilian provider, not sworn to secrecy, receives a large order indicative of some military action, then places bets, is that insider trading? My point is less that it's fine, and more that it was a good thing to keep them banned, until and unless we figure out a better way to regulate them. Public markets are different because the concept of "insider" information is so clearly defined and almost central to all information processing. Government business has other priorities than "how to we keep all gamblers chances equal".