This is where those predictions markets get actually dangerous, not just in terms of financial stuff, but incentivising the committing of crimes in order to win bets. How long will it be before someone commits a violent crime in order to win their polymarket wager?
There was already a journalist who received death threats, because of their reporting on the war. Someone had made bets on the missiles being fired in Israel, and the journalist reported on it. They were threatened and told to change their story, because a lot of people stood to lose a lot of money on a bet if the report was accurate.
Naturally, the journalist reported on it instead of changing the story.
The TL;DR is that the reporter noted that a missile had struck an open field in Israel. It was a relatively straightforward report, because nobody had been injured and no infrastructure had been damaged. But then the reporter started getting threats. They were trying to get him to change his report, to say that missile fragments had struck the field instead. They had bet that Israel wouldn’t be struck by a missile within a certain timeframe. And if the missile was intercepted, (meaning fragments had struck the field) then the bet wouldn’t count it as a successful strike. So by reporting that a missile had struck that field, the reporter was going to make them lose their bet.
This is where those predictions markets get actually dangerous, not just in terms of financial stuff, but incentivising the committing of crimes in order to win bets. How long will it be before someone commits a violent crime in order to win their polymarket wager?
Or start a war…
There was already a journalist who received death threats, because of their reporting on the war. Someone had made bets on the missiles being fired in Israel, and the journalist reported on it. They were threatened and told to change their story, because a lot of people stood to lose a lot of money on a bet if the report was accurate.
Naturally, the journalist reported on it instead of changing the story.
The TL;DR is that the reporter noted that a missile had struck an open field in Israel. It was a relatively straightforward report, because nobody had been injured and no infrastructure had been damaged. But then the reporter started getting threats. They were trying to get him to change his report, to say that missile fragments had struck the field instead. They had bet that Israel wouldn’t be struck by a missile within a certain timeframe. And if the missile was intercepted, (meaning fragments had struck the field) then the bet wouldn’t count it as a successful strike. So by reporting that a missile had struck that field, the reporter was going to make them lose their bet.