Posted by 1659447091 22 hours ago
This is why principled ethical behavior MUST be a cornerstone of acceptable behavior above greed. Even if you are washing and selling greed as “financial obligations” “capital interests” or some other corporate bullshit.
https://www.npr.org/2026/04/23/nx-s1-5797876/polymarket-pari...
The incentive was already there without prediction markets, just like the incentive to screw with drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies that are publicly traded have been making drugs. Wherever there is a measurement tied to a monetary payout, unscrupulous people will try to manipulate it.
This doesn’t change anything since the incentive already existed before prediction markets, people are getting unreasonably emotional about prediction markets due to headline overload.
Creating a new incentive where one does not exist can create moral hazards, an easy example is introducing wildfire prediction markets.
Not to excuse these guys for all their other awfulness of course.
But yes, there is portion of "investing" that is actually gambling. That is what Enron did and it threw down the economy. Those gamblers usually loose and we have quite a lot of regulations trying to restrict the impact of that gambling.
And yes, the usual suspect hate those regulations.
As with most terrible behaviors when a few people do it the results to society aren't so bad. When it gains potential for mass application of the same behavior it becomes a crisis.
Wildfire prediction markets would be incredibly reckless and dangerous.
The two situations are not even close to being the same.
The incentive to interfere in drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies have been publicly traded, this changes nothing.
Introducing wildfire prediction markets is an example of something that does not exist and would be reckless and stupid. The stock market already bets on drug trial outcomes.
What is this referring to?
I don't think there's a smoking Molotov there yet, but the incentives sure don't seem great!
Doesn't seem a huge leap there. Nor does a pissed off janitor who could turn $100 into $1,000 by trashing the wrong samples. Or a bigger player who can turn their $500k into $5M by paying that janitor $1,000.
At least in general, not for this specific Evil Janitor, who is the rarer unsophisticated-schemer/patsy/insider in my contrived hypothetical.
In a mass shooting in Boise, Idaho, a woman stole items off a fallen security guard that was lying on the floor.
https://idahonews.com/news/local/police-idaho-woman-stole-it...
This group has been linked to 35 murders since 2022
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/09/to-build-a-fir...
I think he was trying to boost morale.
the later would not be affect by betting on clinical trials being allowed or prohibited, so I don't think the comparison proves that this would help