Unfortunately, it's not just elected officials that are problematic for prediction markets. The Secretary of War, for instance is not an elected official nor are leaders of the armed forces and there is definitely a prediction market for war. Multiply this by every powerful appointee and every career bureaucrat and see what kind of picture that paints.
It's also low-ranking members of the armed forces that have a lot more information than you'd expect. If you just banned the high ranking members from prediction markets, I actually don't think very much would change. (There would just be slightly more delay.)
You can review that user’s trade history. It’s a bit weird for sure, but they didn’t just stop in to bet on those. They’ve bet huge sums on every prediction relating to Iran, Israel, sp500, recessions, etc.
They’ve been betting for 2 years but only recently starting profiting a lot.
It makes sense to ban government officials from betting. It's hard enough to enforce insider trading. With legal betting, it's literally impossible.
Another worrying issue with betting is just how prevalent the last election was in betting markets. In elections won by thousands or even just hundreds of votes, betting markets can skew results where betters vote for someone just purely for the bet and persuade, shill for the person they bet on.
I can imagine betters placing a bet on a candidate and then launching a defamation campaign against the other.
> Following multiple public reports on the growing influence of prediction markets and their potential for corruption, Merkley and Klobuchar introduced the End Prediction Market Corruption Act — a new bill to ban the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and other public officials from trading event contracts. The bill will ensure that federal elected officials maintain their oath of office to serve the people by preventing them from trading on information that they gained through their role.
Or, and I beg you to consider this radical position: we arrest people who break the law (insider trading is illegal) and those who knowingly help them to do so (the operators of the prediction markets).
How quickly we accept the death of even the ideal of rule of law in favor of embracing a return to an explicit rule by might, fuck-you-got-mine mentality.
We also care about the world outside the prediction markets. If decision-makers have an incentive to "throw the match" by making surprising decisions, that will impair the decision-making, which will affect the rest of us. Likewise, sufficiently-wealthy actors will be able to manipulate the behaviour of officials by betting against the behaviour they want to see, much like an assassination market.
It's easier to ban things before they become entrenched than after. Banning stock trading is hard today because most senators have been doing it for years before getting elected.
I'd be in favor of senators doing prediction markets, just limited to small dollar trades so they can get better at predicting.
This is a good effort. So is the ban on stock trading. This administration is such that it is bringing corruption to the fore in a way not seen in generations. Things are always hard to pass at the start. Keep pushing and this administration will create a massive opportunity to swing the pendulum if we can (as hard as it is now) retain some optimism.
To the people downvoting you, you just said the administration is bringing corruption into the public view. Some people believe they are exposing and some believe they are currently doing it. Either way, corruption and profiting off of a political position is certainly top of mind for many Americans atm.
It wouldn't be a problem if the law was actually applied to prediction markets. If crime is de facto already legal, more laws seems like the least of ones worries.
Unfortunately, it's not just elected officials that are problematic for prediction markets. The Secretary of War, for instance is not an elected official nor are leaders of the armed forces and there is definitely a prediction market for war. Multiply this by every powerful appointee and every career bureaucrat and see what kind of picture that paints.
If we're not going to ban prediction markets, we could at least make it a requirement that all bets are public and associated with a real identity.
That'd go a long way towards curbing the corruption of these things, while preserving (or even greatly enhancing) their "predictive power."
Seems like you’d get a secondary proxy market popping up overnight. Like domain privacy for degenerates.
That's why you make the regulations like AML regulations, where it's a crime to obfuscate the source of the wager too.
It's also low-ranking members of the armed forces that have a lot more information than you'd expect. If you just banned the high ranking members from prediction markets, I actually don't think very much would change. (There would just be slightly more delay.)
Don't forget relatives, useful idiots, and billionaire special envoys!
> A Mystery Trader Made $400,000 Betting on Maduro’s Downfall
> Prediction market trader 'Magamyman' made $553,000 on death of Iran's supreme leader
You can review that user’s trade history. It’s a bit weird for sure, but they didn’t just stop in to bet on those. They’ve bet huge sums on every prediction relating to Iran, Israel, sp500, recessions, etc.
They’ve been betting for 2 years but only recently starting profiting a lot.
https://polymarket.com/profile/%40Magamyman
It makes sense to ban government officials from betting. It's hard enough to enforce insider trading. With legal betting, it's literally impossible.
Another worrying issue with betting is just how prevalent the last election was in betting markets. In elections won by thousands or even just hundreds of votes, betting markets can skew results where betters vote for someone just purely for the bet and persuade, shill for the person they bet on.
I can imagine betters placing a bet on a candidate and then launching a defamation campaign against the other.
Aren't there already basic laws against officials profiting from their role?
> Following multiple public reports on the growing influence of prediction markets and their potential for corruption, Merkley and Klobuchar introduced the End Prediction Market Corruption Act — a new bill to ban the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and other public officials from trading event contracts. The bill will ensure that federal elected officials maintain their oath of office to serve the people by preventing them from trading on information that they gained through their role.
How is any of this going to get passed without enforcement of anti-trust and an end to citizen united?
What does anti-trust enforcement and citizens united have to do with being able to pass laws on insider trading?
The answer is simple - you price in the chance that an insider could have an edge on you when making your prediction. It's all part of the game.
Or, and I beg you to consider this radical position: we arrest people who break the law (insider trading is illegal) and those who knowingly help them to do so (the operators of the prediction markets).
How quickly we accept the death of even the ideal of rule of law in favor of embracing a return to an explicit rule by might, fuck-you-got-mine mentality.
This isn't insider trading you banana.
It doesn't break the law.
We also care about the world outside the prediction markets. If decision-makers have an incentive to "throw the match" by making surprising decisions, that will impair the decision-making, which will affect the rest of us. Likewise, sufficiently-wealthy actors will be able to manipulate the behaviour of officials by betting against the behaviour they want to see, much like an assassination market.
If we can't ban them from trading stocks, good luck with this.
It's easier to ban things before they become entrenched than after. Banning stock trading is hard today because most senators have been doing it for years before getting elected.
I'd be in favor of senators doing prediction markets, just limited to small dollar trades so they can get better at predicting.
Don't be needlessly cynical.
This is a good effort. So is the ban on stock trading. This administration is such that it is bringing corruption to the fore in a way not seen in generations. Things are always hard to pass at the start. Keep pushing and this administration will create a massive opportunity to swing the pendulum if we can (as hard as it is now) retain some optimism.
To the people downvoting you, you just said the administration is bringing corruption into the public view. Some people believe they are exposing and some believe they are currently doing it. Either way, corruption and profiting off of a political position is certainly top of mind for many Americans atm.
It wouldn't be a problem if the law was actually applied to prediction markets. If crime is de facto already legal, more laws seems like the least of ones worries.
> you have the perfect recipe to undermine the public’s belief that government officials are working for the public good
The public already does not believe this. Less than 25% approve of your work.
> This legislation strengthens the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s ability to go after bad actors
And this is designed to "increase trust?"