pull down to refresh

The flip side of how these non-sports markets can be manipulated by insiders, of course, is that the markets themselves can change the rules whenever they want to. This is some next-level bullshit.

74 sats \ 9 replies \ @k00b 2h

I suspect they're trying to prevent assassination markets from forming indirectly. Assassination markets scare the bejesus out of me.

reply

It is kinda wild. I think I saw it shared here, but there was a video of someone basically saying prediction markets could replace delivery services. Instead of paying uber eats for delivery, you have a market for whether you will receive a certain item on a certain day. This incentivizes people to take yes at favorable odds then complete the task.

Obviously it’s hyperbolic and an extreme example, but it does make sense in theory. Same could apply to assassinations

reply

I found it on Instagram by searching google: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSDvhsjj_Ob/

reply

The possibilities are endless

reply
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @adlai 1h
Instead of paying uber eats for delivery, you have a market for whether you will receive a certain item on a certain day.

that seems a little ridiculous. prediction markets work better when lots of people and liquidity are concentrated on a few questions that interest everybody, not fragmented to lots of questions that each interest almost nobody.

reply

Yes. That’s why I said it’s an extreme, hyperbolic example

reply

I feel like it would be very hard to police consistently. If you refuse to pay out due to someone being killed, what if a sports team loses a championship game because one or their players was killed? It seems impossible to draw clear boundaries on what events will be paid out and what won't

reply
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 54m

That's why I'd guess their policy is "if this outcome was plausibly influenced by the death of someone, we do not payout."

reply

A lot of events are interconnected though, and people will argue over that word "plausibly". and this adds another layer of uncertainty to the resolution criteria.

Not that I think that'll stop any degens from yoloing into the prediction markets

reply

Oh yeah. But they're having their cake and eating it too, since "this despot will be out of power" basically walks up to the assassination line and sticks a toe over it.

reply
161 sats \ 8 replies \ @grayruby 3h

They should at least cancel the market and give everyone their money back.

reply

Yeah. Pretty sure the amount that'll get tied up in legal fees and lawsuits otherwise will be more than that.

reply

It depends how clear the resolution criteria was. If it didn't explicitly state that death didn't count, then I suspect you're right.

reply
88 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby 2h

This is partly the problem with user created markets on predyx. Often the resolution criteria is vague or doesn't make sense.

Take for instance this Bitcoin market from today:

"Resolution Rules: This market will resolve to YES if the close price of the Binance BTC/USDT 1-minute candlestick at exactly 12:00 ET (noon Eastern Time) on March 1, 2026 is higher than $68,000. This market will resolve to NO if the YES condition is not satisfied according to the primary resolution source at or before the exact market close time 2026-03-01T23:59:00.000Z. Only data timestamped at or before market close time counts. If no 1-minute close price exists at exactly 12:00 ET due to downtime, resolves NO. Resolution Sources: Primary: Binance BTC/USDT spot market candlestick data (select 1m timeframe and Candles view)"

Which is it 12et noon or 23:59? and the market ends in 6 hours which I believe would be the UTC close.

reply

This is why I am typically very skeptical of buying shares on user created markets. I’ve been burned and it’s just annoying

reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 1h

There is always a rug risk on those user markets especially when you don't know the creator.

reply

Yeah, they don't want to be on the hook for mistakes like that. There will have to be restrictions on user created markets and payouts.

reply
68 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 2h

User created markets should have a review process where someone at predyx or AI reviews the market for any potential issues before allowing it to post.

reply

That and they should limit the size of markets based on past resolution accuracy or require something like a bond to cover payout mistakes.

I think they’ll end up implementing lots of little things like that.

reply

I got my Predyx payout. Maybe a good marketing moment for Predyx

reply
91 sats \ 1 reply \ @HardMoney 2h

They are scared of US Feds coming at them for “death” market betting.

Honestly is a Black Mirror esque slippery slope lol

reply

Man that is a dark thought. Insiders at the FBI / CIA betting on death markets and subtly engineering that outcome without accountability

reply
44 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 3h

WOW

reply
24 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ohtis 3h -31 sats

Wow, they really just decide to switch the rules whenever they feel like it? Crazy.