alt Hacker NewsSomeone would need to take the opposite side of that bet. And who would do that knowing someone might try to assassinate him in order to win that bet?
Someone would need to take the opposite side of that bet. And who would do that knowing someone might try to assassinate him in order to win that bet?
In this scenario, that would be the people paying for the assassination. The people who want it to happen bet that it won't. The people who want to do it bet that it will. The net result is that if one of the people who bet on it happening makes it happen, they are being paid by the people betting against it, in a plausibly deniable way.
A country leader seeing someone suddenly take out a $50 million position on them not being assassinated is not the $50 million vote of confidence a naive read on the market might indicate, it's a $50 million payout to the assassin. Albeit inefficiently so, since others can take the other side of the bet and do nothing. But the deniability may be worth it.