4 ms·

When I see people making money on Iran attacks, and murder of heads of state - it shows clearly something is deeply wrong with Polymarket. Its a level worse tha

When I see people making money on Iran attacks, and murder of heads of state - it shows clearly something is deeply wrong with Polymarket. Its a level worse than Vegas or Indian casinos. A literal ticket to hell. I'm all for banning these evil sites.

shitlord 6mo ago
A lot of people made money off the Iran war, through regular old publicly traded stocks.
- tstenner 6mo ago
  Publicly traded stocks‘ reactions to a war are harder to predict and have way less leverage than a bet like "US will launch 527 missiles against Iran between 3 and 5 pm"
croes 6mo ago
something is deeply wrong with some humans
- throwawa1 6mo ago
  Its just a dark mirror episode. I can't imagine waking up and thinking "boy I'll really make some money if we kill Ayatollah Khomeini today"
  - PowerElectronix 6mo ago
    The other side of that argument could be something like: "Dude, Khomeini better not be killed, it'd suck for me, an average iranian dude. I'd probably bet he dies so I can hedge my personal financial wellbeing for that case"
    - bigyabai 6mo ago
      Which is also hardly imaginable.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Terr_ 6mo ago
      > so I can hedge There are several things about the "these are good because people can hedge" argument which bother me and I struggle to disentangle them, but one facet is this: These betting-markets may be an inferior form of hedging, especially for non-trivial scenarios that are intended to evoke sympathy. (Civilizations have a lot of prior art in risk-management.) For example, our statistical Iranian Dude may be much better-off using their bet-money for targeted purposes, like stocking up on useful imported durable goods that may become unavailable, ideally ones that would have resale value even if nothing bad happens. The convenient online casino doesn't require any more than a vague sense of anxiety to bet, but that generality also limits how well you can use the money to protect yourself. If you're specifically worried about famine, better to arrange a future result of food, versus a payout of cash when nobody is selling food. If you're a factory that uses X as a manufacturing input and worried about a geopolitical blockade, you may be better off investing in alternate supplies or futures contracts for X.
    - mlsu 6mo ago
      The average iranian dude is not going to send money to a company that has donald trump junior on its board of directors to 'hedge their bets' around the Iran war situation.
  - croes 6mo ago
    It’s worse. There are the people from the kill command who bet on what they are ordered to do. There could even be a bet by someone with direct influence on the government who convinces them to do it to make some money.
  - tensegrist 6mo ago
    …bounty hunting?
nekzn 6mo ago
[flagged]
- canelonesdeverd 6mo ago
  >It’s icky to see someone make a moral argument to have something banned Which are valid arguments in your opinion?
- nyeah 6mo ago
  If your argument supports "murder for hire should be legal," then the problem is your argument.
- allthetime 6mo ago
  So I take it you have a problem with laws against murder, fraud, theft, etc. Aside from the government, who is it that you prefer to do judgment and enforcement?
  - nekzn 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - FabHK 6mo ago
      > to ban something we must be able to construct an argument that does not hinge on morality. For example, theft is bad because it deprives you of your possessions. No need to invoke morality. Ok, I'll bite. Why is it bad to deprive you of your possessions? And given that the house always wins, is it not depriving the gamblers of their possessions?
    - noIdeaTheSecond 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - satvikpendem 6mo ago
      That literally is a type of morality, utilitarianism. Kantian deontology is not the only form of morality structure there is.
ifdefdebug 6mo ago
well I see more problematic the people actually doing the Iran attacks and murder of heads of state. Betting on those is distasteful, but doing those things is where the damage lies.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- Barrin92 6mo ago
  the entire point of the argument is that they're the same people. Military bets appear to have significantly higher rates of insider trading than baseline[1], which implies two things, both catastrophic. One is that the markets leak classified information (which is the entire point of the market and it should be a national security no brainer to close it for that reason alone) but the even worse scenario is causality in the other direction, that a bet leads someone to take a military decision. [1]https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/30/polymarket-s-military-markets-show-signs-of-insider-edge-report-suggests https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/30/polymarket-s-mil...
  - jMyles 6mo ago
    > One is that the markets leak classified information (which is the entire point of the market and it should be a national security no brainer to close it for that reason alone) It's not at all obvious that leaks of classified information are per se detrimental to _actual_ national security.
- gchamonlive 6mo ago
  It's not because specifically with these markets there is an amplification effect where the one doing the bet creates incentives for what it's betting in favor or against to materialize in the world. In other words the money spent on bets that involve killing directly foments more killing.
- pjc50 6mo ago
  Military insiders can also buy oil futures...
strathmeyer 6mo ago
[dead]
swingboy 6mo ago
I don’t think they allow bets regarding if someone is going to die or not?
- 10000truths 6mo ago
  Sounds like this could easily be worked around by placing a bet on something that will definitely happen as a result of a death, i.e. "bet $X on whether Iran will close the strait".
  - throwawayffffas 6mo ago
    Or that JD Vance will be president on x date.
- burkaman 6mo ago
  All of these "politican out" markets will resolve to true if the politician dies: https://polymarket.com/predictions/out https://polymarket.com/predictions/out. The language is usually "This market will resolve to “Yes” if <politician> ceases to be <Prime Minister/President/whatever>". Or for another example: https://polymarket.com/event/will-neymar-play-in-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-for-brazil https://polymarket.com/event/will-neymar-play-in-the-2026-fi.... Will Neymar play in the world cup? Not if he's dead. Any kind of "will celebrity appear in X in the future" can be reduced to an assassination market.
  - abustamam 6mo ago
    Kalshi supposedly does not pay out if a death is involved https://xcancel.com/mansourtarek_/status/2029996077554815268 https://xcancel.com/mansourtarek_/status/2029996077554815268 Not sure if Polymarket does the same. Also not sure if I really trust these people to be the arbiter of morality and adhere to their own rules when it doesn't benefit them.
    - nilamo 6mo ago
      So if you kidnap them, hold them in a bunker for a month, then release them, it will pay out. That's probably a positive thing for the world somehow, right?
stackedinserter 6mo ago
[flagged]
- hackyhacky 6mo ago
  Which is more likely: CNN commits murder to increase viewership; or any one of billions of people commits murder to win a bet?
  - abustamam 6mo ago
    Taking bets, long odds on CNN committing murder
  - dzhiurgis 6mo ago
    Funny how people take journalists as some sort of most moral form of human being. Meanwhile they are most likely to take bribes for editorializing, silencing, ads or completely making up stories. All while they are most likely to get earliest information on markets ergo most likely to rig markets themselves.
    - hackyhacky 6mo ago
      You've been so busy straw manning with the ridiculous and unstated claim that journalists are the "most moral form of human being" that you have conspicuously failed to answer my question.
- jMyles 6mo ago
  I'm against state intervention on the internet of all kinds, including banning these sorts of sites but... Yes, of course CNN is evil. Is this still even a matter of debate?
dzhiurgis 6mo ago
> I'm all for banning these evil sites Fortunately we have big beautiful crypto that separates us.
madrox 6mo ago
During COVID, I was working on an esports startup site that was a mix of social media karma + betting. The idea was you had more karma and your posts got more reach the more right you were. We experimented with extending this to non-esports topics during the election, which led to a bunch of Trump-based predicting. Then Jan 6 happen and the whole site went to hell. I pivoted the product because I just didn't want to deal with running a site like that. Seeing what is happening with these sites makes me feel good about my choices. If I were in charge of a product that enabled this I wouldn't sleep at night.
ropable 6mo ago
See also: How Insider Trading Destroys Armies (Perun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lz3vTUbClc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lz3vTUbClc

shitlord 6mo ago

A lot of people made money off the Iran war, through regular old publicly traded stocks.

tstenner 6mo ago
Publicly traded stocks‘ reactions to a war are harder to predict and have way less leverage than a bet like "US will launch 527 missiles against Iran between 3 and 5 pm"

croes 6mo ago

something is deeply wrong with some humans

throwawa1 6mo ago
Its just a dark mirror episode. I can't imagine waking up and thinking "boy I'll really make some money if we kill Ayatollah Khomeini today"
- PowerElectronix 6mo ago
  The other side of that argument could be something like: "Dude, Khomeini better not be killed, it'd suck for me, an average iranian dude. I'd probably bet he dies so I can hedge my personal financial wellbeing for that case"
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    Which is also hardly imaginable.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 6mo ago
    > so I can hedge There are several things about the "these are good because people can hedge" argument which bother me and I struggle to disentangle them, but one facet is this: These betting-markets may be an inferior form of hedging, especially for non-trivial scenarios that are intended to evoke sympathy. (Civilizations have a lot of prior art in risk-management.) For example, our statistical Iranian Dude may be much better-off using their bet-money for targeted purposes, like stocking up on useful imported durable goods that may become unavailable, ideally ones that would have resale value even if nothing bad happens. The convenient online casino doesn't require any more than a vague sense of anxiety to bet, but that generality also limits how well you can use the money to protect yourself. If you're specifically worried about famine, better to arrange a future result of food, versus a payout of cash when nobody is selling food. If you're a factory that uses X as a manufacturing input and worried about a geopolitical blockade, you may be better off investing in alternate supplies or futures contracts for X.
  - mlsu 6mo ago
    The average iranian dude is not going to send money to a company that has donald trump junior on its board of directors to 'hedge their bets' around the Iran war situation.
- croes 6mo ago
  It’s worse. There are the people from the kill command who bet on what they are ordered to do. There could even be a bet by someone with direct influence on the government who convinces them to do it to make some money.
- tensegrist 6mo ago
  …bounty hunting?

nekzn 6mo ago

[flagged]

canelonesdeverd 6mo ago
>It’s icky to see someone make a moral argument to have something banned Which are valid arguments in your opinion?
nyeah 6mo ago
If your argument supports "murder for hire should be legal," then the problem is your argument.
allthetime 6mo ago
So I take it you have a problem with laws against murder, fraud, theft, etc. Aside from the government, who is it that you prefer to do judgment and enforcement?
- nekzn 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - FabHK 6mo ago
    > to ban something we must be able to construct an argument that does not hinge on morality. For example, theft is bad because it deprives you of your possessions. No need to invoke morality. Ok, I'll bite. Why is it bad to deprive you of your possessions? And given that the house always wins, is it not depriving the gamblers of their possessions?
  - noIdeaTheSecond 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - satvikpendem 6mo ago
    That literally is a type of morality, utilitarianism. Kantian deontology is not the only form of morality structure there is.

ifdefdebug 6mo ago

well I see more problematic the people actually doing the Iran attacks and murder of heads of state. Betting on those is distasteful, but doing those things is where the damage lies.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 6mo ago
the entire point of the argument is that they're the same people. Military bets appear to have significantly higher rates of insider trading than baseline[1], which implies two things, both catastrophic. One is that the markets leak classified information (which is the entire point of the market and it should be a national security no brainer to close it for that reason alone) but the even worse scenario is causality in the other direction, that a bet leads someone to take a military decision. [1]https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/30/polymarket-s-military-markets-show-signs-of-insider-edge-report-suggests https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/04/30/polymarket-s-mil...
- jMyles 6mo ago
  > One is that the markets leak classified information (which is the entire point of the market and it should be a national security no brainer to close it for that reason alone) It's not at all obvious that leaks of classified information are per se detrimental to _actual_ national security.
gchamonlive 6mo ago
It's not because specifically with these markets there is an amplification effect where the one doing the bet creates incentives for what it's betting in favor or against to materialize in the world. In other words the money spent on bets that involve killing directly foments more killing.
pjc50 6mo ago
Military insiders can also buy oil futures...

strathmeyer 6mo ago

[dead]

swingboy 6mo ago

I don’t think they allow bets regarding if someone is going to die or not?

10000truths 6mo ago
Sounds like this could easily be worked around by placing a bet on something that will definitely happen as a result of a death, i.e. "bet $X on whether Iran will close the strait".
- throwawayffffas 6mo ago
  Or that JD Vance will be president on x date.
burkaman 6mo ago
All of these "politican out" markets will resolve to true if the politician dies: https://polymarket.com/predictions/out https://polymarket.com/predictions/out. The language is usually "This market will resolve to “Yes” if <politician> ceases to be <Prime Minister/President/whatever>". Or for another example: https://polymarket.com/event/will-neymar-play-in-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-for-brazil https://polymarket.com/event/will-neymar-play-in-the-2026-fi.... Will Neymar play in the world cup? Not if he's dead. Any kind of "will celebrity appear in X in the future" can be reduced to an assassination market.
- abustamam 6mo ago
  Kalshi supposedly does not pay out if a death is involved https://xcancel.com/mansourtarek_/status/2029996077554815268 https://xcancel.com/mansourtarek_/status/2029996077554815268 Not sure if Polymarket does the same. Also not sure if I really trust these people to be the arbiter of morality and adhere to their own rules when it doesn't benefit them.
  - nilamo 6mo ago
    So if you kidnap them, hold them in a bunker for a month, then release them, it will pay out. That's probably a positive thing for the world somehow, right?

stackedinserter 6mo ago

[flagged]

hackyhacky 6mo ago
Which is more likely: CNN commits murder to increase viewership; or any one of billions of people commits murder to win a bet?
- abustamam 6mo ago
  Taking bets, long odds on CNN committing murder
- dzhiurgis 6mo ago
  Funny how people take journalists as some sort of most moral form of human being. Meanwhile they are most likely to take bribes for editorializing, silencing, ads or completely making up stories. All while they are most likely to get earliest information on markets ergo most likely to rig markets themselves.
  - hackyhacky 6mo ago
    You've been so busy straw manning with the ridiculous and unstated claim that journalists are the "most moral form of human being" that you have conspicuously failed to answer my question.
jMyles 6mo ago
I'm against state intervention on the internet of all kinds, including banning these sorts of sites but... Yes, of course CNN is evil. Is this still even a matter of debate?

dzhiurgis 6mo ago

> I'm all for banning these evil sites Fortunately we have big beautiful crypto that separates us.

madrox 6mo ago

During COVID, I was working on an esports startup site that was a mix of social media karma + betting. The idea was you had more karma and your posts got more reach the more right you were. We experimented with extending this to non-esports topics during the election, which led to a bunch of Trump-based predicting. Then Jan 6 happen and the whole site went to hell. I pivoted the product because I just didn't want to deal with running a site like that. Seeing what is happening with these sites makes me feel good about my choices. If I were in charge of a product that enabled this I wouldn't sleep at night.

ropable 6mo ago

See also: How Insider Trading Destroys Armies (Perun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lz3vTUbClc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lz3vTUbClc