2 ms·

People want very smart people to wager on future events to make public the best information possible. Okay, so when these super-predictors get fleece by insider

by scoofy 7mo ago

People want very smart people to wager on future events to make public the best information possible. Okay, so when these super-predictors get fleece by insiders, then what? Having any uncertainty market where insider information is not considered cheating is a complete waste of time. The insiders will always win, everyone else will slowly lose even if they are smart as hell. Just imagine playing poker at a table where one in a thousand people can see all the hole cards. The entire game is for them to wait you to put all your money on the table when they already know the winning move. Even if you can win enough to stay in the game, they can take you for everything in one play when you get something wrong that you were very certain of.

dmos62 7mo ago
I guess this would be fine if there was no such thing as anonymous betting, right? Some public official weaseling his way onto a bet he has insider knowledge on is fine, as long as everyone knows that he's doing that. Or am I wrong? Edit: then again, in EU banks regularly force you to fill out a questionnaire where you declare whether or not you're affiliated or closely related to any public officials for precisely corruption prevention (or detection) purposes. Why are people not forced to do that on these platforms?
- scoofy 7mo ago
  Then get rid of it. Make it illegal or tax it to death. My point is that the entire premise of "why it's ackchyually good though" is wrong. The thesis is that the markets let intelligent agents flourish, adding value to the real world. When really, the insiders can be idiots and still win. We gain no new information because the insider has every incentive to hold off on their move until the very last minute, maximally reducing the effects of theta and vega, to maximize profit. This adds little to no practical information to the market while potentially removing super-predictors from the market. It just becomes a vehicle for insider-trading, so make that illegal, cancellable, or just get rid of the market altogether.

by scoofy 7mo ago

dmos62 7mo ago

I guess this would be fine if there was no such thing as anonymous betting, right? Some public official weaseling his way onto a bet he has insider knowledge on is fine, as long as everyone knows that he's doing that. Or am I wrong? Edit: then again, in EU banks regularly force you to fill out a questionnaire where you declare whether or not you're affiliated or closely related to any public officials for precisely corruption prevention (or detection) purposes. Why are people not forced to do that on these platforms?

scoofy 7mo ago
Then get rid of it. Make it illegal or tax it to death. My point is that the entire premise of "why it's ackchyually good though" is wrong. The thesis is that the markets let intelligent agents flourish, adding value to the real world. When really, the insiders can be idiots and still win. We gain no new information because the insider has every incentive to hold off on their move until the very last minute, maximally reducing the effects of theta and vega, to maximize profit. This adds little to no practical information to the market while potentially removing super-predictors from the market. It just becomes a vehicle for insider-trading, so make that illegal, cancellable, or just get rid of the market altogether.