Wouldn't the counterargument to this be that if the poor grunt is willing to betray his country for money in the prediction market, he would also be willing to take money from enemy x to do the same thing?

With the prediction market, there is a financial incentive for people on the opposite side of the bet being motivated to uncover the malfeasance.

Pizza orders are also an indicator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_pizza_theory

With the venezuela attack, the real trade wasn't on Polymarket or Kalshi.

The trade was going long the 3x Oil&Gas ETFs the trading day beforehand. There was huge buying for absolutely zero perceived reason...then boom we just straight up kidnapped Maduro.

That person is reportedly in jail and facing serious time.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-jails-venezuela-leaker-...

Anyone with a security clearance making bets like this is not a smart person.

This is fascinating.

I'd just like to make the distinction between:

1- Making a bet with privileged information. 2- Creating the event and making the bet.

2 would be a war crime, 1 would be a probabilistic leak.

Trump claimed they didn't want to pass through congress because they leak, and there were no leaks about the event. But if any personnel made a polymarket bet, that would constitute a leak. It wasn't acted upon, but if personnel continues to leak information in this manner, it is possible that an adversary will eventually listen to this signal, and that it was just ignored because it is too fresh.

This analysis would also make it clear why it would be immoral to participate in such markets as a civilian. Because if it is your country you might be compensating an insider for information, benefitting the enemy. And if you are not, you might be harming the enemy, but you would be an unlawful belligerent.