3 ms·
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
by dmos62 6mo 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 6mo agoThen 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.