undefined | Better HN

0 pointsffsm82mo ago0 comments

I understood the argument like this: If there is a bet going that a war doesn't start, and you're able to start said war... Then everyone betting on the war not starting is effectively providing venture capital funds for you to start that war.

So if eg. 20 mil is bet on it not starting, the actor holding the proverbial trigger only needs to "invest" sufficient funds to drain the bet and then capitalize on it by pulling the trigger, everyone being against it would've effectively invested into the war

The analogy breaks apart at VC, because they're expecting payout after successful funding, which this doesn't provide.

I think it's more like Kickstarter/crowdfunding for wars. Just as fucked up though

(The "start a war" setting I'm using here is just to illustrate the point. There are a lot more granular bets going on like (place) will be contested etc, effectively creating money pools for offensives)

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

azan_2mo ago

There's not enough liquidity on polymarket for that. However there's enough liquidity on stock market and indeed it appears that there was a lot of insider trading around start of the war and ceasefire. Polymarket is really pennies when it comes to bets that can be also realized on the stock market.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse