6 ms·
Kalshi and Polymarket bets on clinical trials criticized as 'ghastly'
- glaslong 2mo agoYou know, I didn't expect the Insider Trading Casinos to be quite so brazenly evil. I really thought they'd have wanted to keep a lower profile, and not appear so urgently in need of being regulated or sued out of existence. They even had the template of "Sports Betting" to work from.
- DANmode 2mo agoThey were already illegal! Why be careful, they know they’ve got the social trend and the regulatory bodies on their sides.
- Lord-Jobo 2mo agoThey don’t need to keep a low profile, they have the president and his family using their services for enrichment. They are immune from consequence, might as well advertise at maximum and unleash hell for the most gain. This is why principled ethical behavior MUST be a cornerstone of acceptable behavior above greed. Even if you are washing and selling greed as “financial obligations” “capital interests” or some other corporate bullshit.
- Ekaros 2mo agoHow is such bets any different than options trading? If one is reasonable I don't see why the other would be that much different.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- idiotsecant 2mo agoIf we bet on where fires will occur and I have empty pockets and a book of matches that's a little different than options trading. As with most terrible behaviors when a few people do it the results to society aren't so bad. When it gains potential for mass application of the same behavior it becomes a crisis.
- DANmode 2mo agoUnfortunately your example gets a little foggier once you consider options and futures during a period like the one the US is currently in with Iran.
- glaslong 2mo agoLike when your buddies trade crude on weekdays but you get to flip the War switch on/off all weekend?
- quickthrowman 2mo agoBiotech stocks for premarket drugs are functionally binary bets on the drug trial itself and have existed for a long time. Wildfire prediction markets would be incredibly reckless and dangerous. The two situations are not even close to being the same.
- watwut 2mo agoOptions trading is particularly bad example, because the buyer can choose whether they exercise it or not. You can just let the option expire. But yes, there is portion of "investing" that is actually gambling. That is what Enron did and it threw down the economy. Those gamblers usually loose and we have quite a lot of regulations trying to restrict the impact of that gambling. And yes, the usual suspect hate those regulations.
- quickthrowman 2mo agoIt’s not, anyone claiming otherwise is arguing from an emotional position, not a rational one.
- DonsDiscountGas 2mo agoFrom a moral perspective I don't think it is. From a more practical perspective... It's only tiny biotechs where the share price exactly tracks a single clinical trial. This opens up ways to make more specific bets
- jeffreyames 2mo ago[flagged]
- idiotsecant 2mo agoThis is exactly the sort of bad incentives that lead to things like deliberately throwing drug trials. Very small amounts of money make people do horrible things every day, by what magic would this be an exception?
- kwikiel 2mo agoUsually the reverse problem is happening - company does pump its stock based on potentially having their drug accepted but it’s usually the case that it will be rejected - but you don’t k ow that for sure for many years - prediction market may help here
- bb88 2mo agoBut through short selling the stock market already allows the ability to bet against a company.
- andai 2mo ago> Very small amounts of money make people do horrible things every day, What is this referring to?
- tencentshill 2mo agoRussia and Iran are known to hire teenagers online to kill targets in Europe for little money.
- zaik 2mo agoI never heard of this. Do we know somebody who was killed this way?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- anotherhue 2mo agoTo be fair buying securities or derivatives ahead of a pharma results announcement is pretty common already. Not to excuse these guys for all their other awfulness of course.
- gordian-mind 2mo ago[flagged]
- glaslong 2mo agoWill there be anyone hanging around to scrutinize though? The pharmacist patsy maybe, but whoever bribed them is already paid out and off doing their laundry
- andersonpico 2mo ago> A pharmacist, or one of their relatives, openly taking a large position against a trial's success would be far more likely to attract scrutiny than, say, a pharmacist being secretly paid by a competitor to interfere with the trial. the later would not be affect by betting on clinical trials being allowed or prohibited, so I don't think the comparison proves that this would help
- la6479 2mo agois there a way to see the odds for all the kalshi bets without logging in?
- ninju 2mo agoThere have already been examples of people manipulating scientific readings to make a quick buck on a prediction market bet https://www.npr.org/2026/04/23/nx-s1-5797876/polymarket-paris-weather-bet https://www.npr.org/2026/04/23/nx-s1-5797876/polymarket-pari...
- quickthrowman 2mo agoThere are examples of people manipulating precipitation monitors to get crop insurance payouts: https://www.agweb.com/news/business/rain-robbers-how-four-farmers-faked-drought-and-stole-millions-crop-insurance https://www.agweb.com/news/business/rain-robbers-how-four-fa... The incentive was already there without prediction markets, just like the incentive to screw with drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies that are publicly traded have been making drugs. Wherever there is a measurement tied to a monetary payout, unscrupulous people will try to manipulate it. This doesn’t change anything since the incentive already existed before prediction markets, people are getting unreasonably emotional about prediction markets due to headline overload. Creating a new incentive where one does not exist can create moral hazards, an easy example is introducing wildfire prediction markets.
- quickthrowman 2mo agoBinary bets on drug approvals for publicly traded biotech companies are no different than going long or short the equity of the biotech company. The incentive to interfere in drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies have been publicly traded, this changes nothing. Introducing wildfire prediction markets is an example of something that does not exist and would be reckless and stupid. The stock market already bets on drug trial outcomes.