Polymarket gamblers have pressured at least one journalist regarding reporting of missile strikes. This requires regulation or, as others here have suggested, non-anonymity, maybe other measures too.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/18/polymarket-gam...

>This isn’t pension funds placing bets risking people’s investment

Its potentially much worse: we don't know if the threats and bets are isolated. While diplomacy happens, the threats may very well be exaggerated to create the market opportunity.

I would suggest at least having KYC (know your customer) rules which all banks, financial exchanges and traditional online bookmakers are required to implement would be reasonable for these markets?

At least it would somewhat hinder the type of activity we’ve seen (where journalists are threatened by criminals to withdraw or change their stories) without just banning such betting exchanges outright.

It's not so simple. The game must be fair.

What if 100% of the bets you place in a slot machine go to the owner? It's the exact same thing here.

Slot machines are regulated so the game is fair and they're not simply machines where the rich steal from the poor. Such a machine would be scam by definition.

I think making the bets not anonymous is sufficient imho.

If a gov't official (including the president) is leaking classified information, there's already laws about that isnt there? (Whether it's effective is another question - i'm assuming it's currently effective).