Polymarket gamblers betting millions on war

Not a new phenomenon! It happened during the War on Iraq. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/weekinreview/you-can-bet-...

People will bet on absolutely anything; gambling is as old as time itself.

> Wagering was generally legal under British common law, so long as it did not to lead to immortality or impolity.13 Bets about the outcome of events in war, over the death of political leaders, over court cases, or between voters over election results were illegal on these grounds.14 In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, the British government increasingly attempted to limit gambling, especially among the working classes. The Gaming Act of 1845 made gambling contracts and debts unenforceable in court (but otherwise liberalized what amounts could be wagered); the Betting Houses Act of 1853 outlawed the operation of betting establishments other than private clubs; the Betting Houses Act of 1874 cracked down of the advertisement of wagering; and the Street Betting Act of 1906 made acceptance of wagers in streets and public places illegal.15 Despite the legal uncertainty in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Fleet Street press reported on election wagering at the London Stock Exchange and at Lloyd’s in markets for Parliamentary “majorities.” [^0]

[^0] Rhode, Paul W. “The Long History of Political Betting Markets.” KU School of Business, 2012 March. https://users.wfu.edu/strumpks/papers/Int_Election_Betting_F...

This is becoming the kind of "VC platform for online war investments". You: 1. Plan 2. Bet 3. Invest money upfront 4. Execute 5. Redeem your profits

Every shareholder of an arms company (or holder of an index tracker), is betting on war too.

This mechanism is stupid, corrupt and driving extreme behaviour.

But betting on war is not new, and I find it abhorrent that people will hand wave away the military-industrial complex as an essential component to modern civilisation while calling individuals making bets on war horrible names.

It's just scale and semantics, not core differences to my eye.

Reminds me of the part in National Lampoon’s Vegas Vacation when Clark Griswold goes to the 3rd rate casino and starts betting on weird things.

So...

>“It used to be the news channels were the callers,” said Kane. “They used to be the final say in big events. Like this officially happened because CNN and Fox News said so. But thanks to Polymarket, there’s a new signal.”

This is interesting because of this:

>At the moment, when there is a dispute, markets on Polymarket are settled by an anonymous group of people who hold a crypto token called UMA.

[...]

>It isn’t known who the largest UMA holders are, or what might affect how they vote. It is entirely possible that the people who finally settle a bet on UMA have large amounts of money staked on it.

So basically instead of trusting CNN and Fox News you trust an anonymous group of people who may or may not profit themselves from their own decisions. I can't see how this is any better.

> There is now more than $500,000 (£371,000) staked on whether Russia will capture Kostyantynivka this year .

Now everyone has a chance to profit from war ! Thank you Polymarket

Any time the headline is gamblers making millions the reality is 90% of gamblers losing, maybe 9% breaking even or making small wins, and a few making millions.

Imagine a bunch of people are tortured, removed from their homes, are killed… and you get paid? Are you cheering for it because you’re getting paid?

I can’t imagine wanting to be cheering on death and destruction.

[dead]

'Capitalism': the inevitable reduction of all humanity to fungible currency

Do they allow for bets like how many civilians killed by Israel during April?

Or how many schools are bombed by the USA?

Or how many times will it take the USA to declare victory before the end of the conflict?