3 ms·

Between this and crypto cryptocurrencies (which obviously can be used to make bets) I don’t know which is more destructive to society

• toenail 5mo ago
  Fiat money is obviously more destructive, but you'd have to do some basic research to figure that out.
  • anonymars 5mo ago
    Here's a thought experiment for you: if "fiat currency=bad" and "hard money=good", why did the world collectively switch? Where are all the prosperous societies that held the line?
    • singingtoday 5mo ago
      There is an answer the crypto enthusiasts have to this, but since I'm not one of them I wouldn't do the argument justice. The short version is, it's about control and power.
    • fyzix 5mo ago
      They were forced to switch when the dominant military power decided to rugpull on August 15, 1971.
      • anonymars 5mo ago
        Exactly how did the US suspending conversion of its dollar to gold prevent other countries from using hard currency instead of fiat for their own?
• logicchains 5mo ago
  How is it even remotely as destructive as casinos, where the odds are always against you? From a probability perspective Polymarket is much more fair, as you actually have positive expected value if you have an information advantage.
  • andy81 5mo ago
    Because Polymarket creates an incentive to change the real-world result. If you create a bet on {person} getting assassinated by {date}, you greatly increase the chances of somebody on the "Yes" side thumbing the scales.
    • cindyllm 5mo ago
      [dead]
    • cogman10 5mo ago
      Yup. Gambling is already bad but somewhat contained within the walls of a casino or race track. When you put money on the line for events that are influencable, things get dark fast. Seemingly harmless sports betting is rife with stories about mob members going to extreme lengths to change the outcome of a sporting event. It's not hard to see how bad a bet like "so and so won't show up to event x" can go. These don't have to be bets about killing or injuring people to result in people being killed or injured to win a bet. These companies are a pox on society.
  • dabeeeenster 5mo ago
    The ingredient you are missing is fraud
  • hvb2 5mo ago
    I know a fair number of people who go to a casino, spend a pre determined amount of money and as such, have fun. Also, in roulette there's nowhere to put your money on whether a countries leader will be dead by the end of the month
  • jerf 5mo ago
    I will make this argument in favor of casinos, which is that at least we have coevolved with them. They've been around for centuries. We collectively recognize the dangers. We are not collectively blindsided by them. Individually, yeah, by all means they can prey on people. But they're on the list of things that have been preying on people for centuries, like alcohol, and all kinds of other things. Ring-fencing casinos has a track record of some success at containing them. I mean, sure, I'd love to wake up tomorrow and for all of the human race to have advanced to the point that to every last individual we are no longer gambling and that industry vanishes in a puff of smoke. I am as far into the belief that they are immoral as it is practically possible to be. But they are at least a known and knowable risk. These prediction markets are blindsiding us. We could put up with them for another few decades until we coevolve further with them, or we could just, you know, not. Just end them now. Plus, prediction markets have a certain meta-ness to them that casinos largely lack that will keep them fresh and coevolving their own new ways to predate on us. Casinos have basically reached their final form, prediction markets could take yet more decades to get there and it's possible there isn't a stable endgame with them. Or, again, we could just end them here and now.