[HN Gopher] Polymarket Paid US Social Media Influencers for Elec...
___________________________________________________________________
Polymarket Paid US Social Media Influencers for Election Content
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 73 points
Date : 2024-11-05 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| The headline makes it sound worse than it is. Basically they
| promoted their website through social media influencers. The ads
| just advertised their prediction market platform and their data
| using political themes, but didn't constitute campaign
| advertising, and didn't encourage betting, and more than 99% of
| people who visited as a result of these ads didn't make a
| prediction (place a "bet") but just viewed the website and
| predictions. What's wrong with that? To me it just looks like
| typical social media advertising. The fact that they targeted
| those interested in politics or elections doesn't seem relevant
| to me.
|
| It sounds like the only past issue they had is this:
|
| > Polymarket blocked US traders following a $1.4 million
| settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which
| said it was operating without the correct licensing.
|
| I am not an expert on this topic but why are consenting adults
| not allowed to freely make predictions or place wagers or
| whatever? I don't have an interest in this sort of thing
| personally, but I also find this type of restriction overly
| patronizing.
| caseyohara wrote:
| The CFTC argues that allowing betting on political events could
| "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely American
| experience of participating in the democratic electoral
| process." and that betting might incentivize election
| interference, which could erode public trust in electoral
| outcomes.
|
| It's worth mentioning that betting on elections has happened in
| black markets for centuries with none of these negative
| outcomes, as far as I know.
|
| But I share the same concern: if there is a legal market for
| betting on election events with billions or trillions on the
| line, eventually someone will interfere with an election. We've
| seen this in sports, we definitely don't need it in American
| politics.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > if there is a legal market for betting on election events
| with billions or trillions on the line, eventually someone
| will interfere with an election.
|
| There are _already_ billions or trillions on the line, and
| people have far larger incentives already. Betting wouldn 't
| appreciably add to that.
| webstrand wrote:
| I'd argue that it will, this introduces incentives for
| parties that were previously disinvolved.
| no_wizard wrote:
| This is key, it will push more people toward this, not
| away, because betting is available across all income
| brackets unlike say, hiring a lobbyist, of which lobbying
| has rules and regulations that at least in theory are
| suppose prevent these sorts of things
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Organized betting ruins everything. Betting shouldn't be a
| business, it should be something done between a group of
| people for fun (like a work pool or a madness bracket between
| friends). Legalizing sports betting was one of the dumbest
| decisions and the impact of it on sports has been terrible.
| nomel wrote:
| > with billions or trillions on the line
|
| This has always been the case, and is why the mega wealthy go
| one step ahead by influencing the politicians [1], to limit
| the harm a vote can do, thanks to the democracy destroying
| Citizens United [2], and the like, that makes it possible.
|
| [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-
| pacs...
|
| [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-
| citi...
| dgfitz wrote:
| > The CFTC argues that allowing betting on political events
| could "commoditize and degrade the integrity of the uniquely
| American experience of participating in the democratic
| electoral process."
|
| I'm wondering why voting is considered a uniquely American
| experience.
|
| I also read somewhere, and I'm too lazy to link it, that
| books on the American election process have existed since the
| late 1800s. It's been wrong 3 times in reference to the
| presidential winner. Once was recently.
|
| Edit: typos
| creaturemachine wrote:
| As an outsider looking in, it certainly is unique. Uniquely
| broken.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _I'm wondering why voting is considered a uniquely
| American experience._
|
| America is the world's oldest democracy, so in the earlier
| days of the republic it was uniquely American. That's where
| a lot of the American national pride about elections comes
| from and I think the CFTC was conflating the rhetoric.
|
| Europeans hate American national pride, so that's where a
| lot of the sniping comes from. (Europeans also snipe at
| each other, so they're not to be taken too seriously)
| malfist wrote:
| How can you argue that advertisement for a gambling website
| didn't amount to encouraging betting? That's the sum total goal
| of an ad
| tene80i wrote:
| The problem is advertising a service that's illegal for large
| proportions of the audience being advertised at. That doesn't
| seem particularly confusing. It's illegal in country X, so
| don't advertise it to people in country X.
| sixhobbits wrote:
| It's not illegal for US people to view it and use it as a
| poll. Afaik polymarket doesn't currently charge fees, so they
| are trying to become a well known/respected alternative to
| official polls, economists etc on debatable topics.
|
| Seems ok to me that they want to build their brand in the US
| and assume US people will bet on other topics and take
| interest in viewing the election results.
|
| I mean I also think it's an open secret that most or at least
| many of their users are probably US using VPNs. But I don't
| think this necessarily changes anything about their official
| goals
| tene80i wrote:
| Yes fair point, although as you say the existence of VPNs
| does explain how the advertising could be driving uptake of
| illegal behaviour, and therefore why it could be viewed as
| undesirable or improper.
| who-shot-jr wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.ph/ouJmu
| jwilber wrote:
| Kalshi is hiring influencers as well:
| https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/kalshi/jobs/k3eFjQK-in...
|
| I don't see the issue?
| paulgb wrote:
| I'm paywalled on the article but I think the issue is
| specifically with Polymarket hiring _US_ influencers when they
| aren't allowed to let Americans trade on the platform. Kalshi
| is allowed to let Americans trade so it's not an issue
| (assuming they follow disclosure requirements etc.)
| ajross wrote:
| Gambling is a regulated industry. Kalshi is licensed in the US,
| Polymarket isn't (but US consumers routinely use VPNs to evade
| their block). So the fact that they're clearly marketing to US
| consumers seems to be fraudulent evasion of oversight.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| I absolutely hate the election betting markets. They seem so un-
| American. It was only made legal in the USA last month, so all of
| the results so far have been foreign entities.
|
| Hate it.
| paulgb wrote:
| FWIW, Polymarket is still technically not available from within
| the US, although since it's crypto I imagine that's not an
| insurmountable geoblock.
| tim333 wrote:
| I've been using it from the UK where it's also technically
| not available and it's trivial to get around. You just have
| to turn on a vpn to click the bet button.
| seanw444 wrote:
| > betting
|
| > un-American
| dcrazy wrote:
| Sports gambling itself was illegal in most of America until
| the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. NCAA in 2018.
|
| The entirety of the legalized sports betting industry has
| emerged from essentially nothing and embedded itself
| thoroughly in the national sports psyche in the span of six
| years.
| password4321 wrote:
| Nearly 1200 comments last month:
|
| _Legalizing sports gambling was a mistake_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41659458
| linotype wrote:
| I feel so bad for kids growing up watching sports now. The
| beer commercials were bad enough, now kids are going to
| grow up to be gambling addicts too.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| "Video Games", I mean, digital slot machines with a game
| on the side was doing this just fine before sports
| gambling was legalized.
|
| Hell, even Lego is in on the Gacha action! Gambling is
| too profitable an endeavor to allow in a market economy.
| It only serves to snuff out all the oxygen for less
| scummy business.
| reverius42 wrote:
| I actually think we should ban polling, too. Make the election
| about getting the message out and convincing people, not about
| a horse race between two numbers.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Could be a good idea, but I suspect asking people what they
| think about political candidates enjoys such core first
| amendment protection that banning it would require amending
| the Constitution. And practically, nobody in power will want
| to ban them because they're a tool for staying in power. Same
| reason that we'll probably always have a two party system.
| Krssst wrote:
| In a one-turn voting system, polls are very useful as a kind
| of "turn zero". The important point is that one should always
| tell the poller who they actually want to vote for (a
| possible third candidate) so that if this candidate actually
| stands a chance it can be seen in the poll and be voted for.
| In the actual election, if you see your third candidate has
| no chance you can vote for someone that can actually win.
|
| Changing the voting system seems much more important than
| trying to mess with the polls. However, regulating polls to
| enforce their trustworthiness is probably a good idea since
| they may have so much power.
|
| In France the presidential election is two-turns and even
| then I think we need polls since there are so many candidates
| in the first turn diluting votes.
| jfengel wrote:
| The US is really a two-turn voting system. The first turn
| is the primaries.
|
| It's quite different from the French presidential election,
| but the first round is open to all candidates. A non-
| aligned candidate would have to formally join a party to
| run for the nomination, but that's a matter of paperwork,
| not ideology. If they win office, they owe the party no
| obligations at all.
|
| The French system may well be preferable, but the American
| system really does have more opportunities for non-aligned
| candidates than people realize. They tend to dismiss the
| primaries as unimportant, but they really are a first round
| of voting -- that's why they're called "primary". Anybody
| who wants influence can start there, rather than jumping
| straight into the general election.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Why not ranked choice?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Make the election about getting the message out and
| convincing people, not about a horse race between two
| numbers_
|
| Polling helps elites and voters alike allocate resources.
| Biden was replaced in part due to polls. Similarly, if a race
| in my state becomes unexpectedly competitive, I'll at
| attention more than I would have absent that signal.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Is that a good thing? The more you complicate the election
| process, particularly the more meta-information you add -
| such as predictions, polls, early results - the more it
| drives people to play silly meta-games, trying to "vote
| strategically", instead of just _expressing their
| preferences_.
|
| I feel this violates some fundamental assumptions about the
| democratic process - when most people play the metagame,
| the result is no longer expressing real, object-level
| preferences of the people. At the very least, it encourages
| "us vs. them" thinking instead of focusing on improving
| lives.
| thfuran wrote:
| If we only get to pick one thing, I'd much rather see us
| harmonize voting times between states so we don't have the
| election results rolling in before some people have voted.
| swyx wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalshi is a nyc company i believe
| lettergram wrote:
| It's 100% American and has been a thing forever. It's also a
| free speech argument, I should be able to bet on outcomes of
| events. It was common all throughout US history
|
| https://users.wfu.edu/strumpks/papers/Int_Election_Betting_F...
| bbor wrote:
| Fascinating, thanks for sharing! It should probably be
| highlighted tho that there were absolutely waves of relative
| interest (~1790-1840 and ~1890-1910, at least), and it was
| outlawed almost everywhere by the mid 1800s, which obviously
| means it primarily fell to the rich and well-connected. Ditto
| in Britain -- they had bets, but; 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. In the Victorian and
| Edwardian periods, the British government increasingly
| attempted to limit gambling, especially among the working
| classes.
|
| So I'd argue it's more like "a persistent scourge threatening
| democracy" than "a treasured ideal of free speech". But I'm
| biased against all forms of gambling, so might have skimmed
| it unfairly. Worth a read, for sure!
| Dig1t wrote:
| There's evidence that they have done, and currently do, a
| better job predicting election outcomes than polling.
|
| Are you sure you don't like them just because they are
| currently predicting the person that you don't like is going to
| win the US election?
|
| https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/666656...
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02613...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It will be interesting to see how we feel about the prediction
| markets after today. They are making a clear bet on the winner,
| and if they are wrong, it will be a pretty big hit on their
| value.
| asow92 wrote:
| It's just statistics. Even if it's 60/40 you could be wrong 4
| out of 10 times.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is true, but go ask Nate Silver how that went for him in
| 2016. The general public has only superficial familiarity
| with even basic statistics. 60/40 is perceived by many as a
| near guarantee. More than enough to make them cry 'stolen
| election!' if the election does not go the way they want.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Market dynamics are subtly different than statistics of
| traditional polls, since you need to account for fees and
| slippage and irrationality. You'd also need to compare this
| to a poll asking "who do you think will win the election?"
| which is a different question from "who are you voting for?"
| n2d4 wrote:
| "Subtly different"? It's not even remotely the same thing,
| all they have in common is that the unit is %. The betting
| probability is the (expected) chance that a certain
| candidate wins, while polls measure the % of population
| that votes for a candidate. A polling lead of 20% would
| seal the election.
| ManuelKiessling wrote:
| PredictIt is at 53:52 currently, wouldn't call this clear.
| greenavocado wrote:
| That's to mobilize people to vote who would otherwise stay
| home if the gap was bigger
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's interesting, I have only looked recently at
| polymarket, and it's at 62/38 right now. Robinhood is at
| 59/43. I wonder why PredictIt is so much closer.
| ks2048 wrote:
| I agree, although I read somewhere prediction markets in 2016
| had Clinton by a wide margin. I don't have a reference for that
| and obviously they would have been tiny markets by comparison
| to today.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| If you have a coin and know for a fact that it is either a fair
| coin or a 60 40 coin, it would take ~100 flips to be 80% sure
| which kind of coin it is. We will never know whether
| polymarket's odds were more accurate than e. g. Nate Silver's
| on predicting a single event
| rightbyte wrote:
| Does it work like that? Wont the house set the odds such that
| it always win? I.e. the betters set the odds but the initial
| seed. The house know their book, we don't.
|
| EDIT: Oh. Visiting the site, it seems like it is not gambling?
| Or have I misunderstood it.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It's definitely gambling (though maybe not legally, in some
| cases; RH is selling event contracts, and maybe derivatives
| are not legally gambling, but effectively they sure seem like
| it...). The payout is $1 if it turns out correct, $0 if not.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| They had a huge miss in 2016 and it didn't seem to have a
| significant long term effect.
| throwaway657656 wrote:
| There is already plenty of historical data that would have
| demonstrated the quality of the predictions. This specific bet,
| however, could be the worst way to judge the prediction markets
| given that the key demographics of the gamblers, young risk
| taking males, are the same that strongly favor the GOP
| candidate. In that regard, your bet alone demonstrates loyalty
| which feels like a soft win. Also, when you win if you win, and
| if you lose, you were still right because you can cite the
| heavily skewed prediction market as proof the election was
| stolen.
| baxtr wrote:
| But how is a prediction market any good if you need to
| correct for the demographics of the gamblers for each bet?
| sakopov wrote:
| Polymarket is a new thing and it's throwing a lot of political
| pundits off their tracks because they treat it as political
| sentiment indicator, but it's all just gambling and manipulation.
| chatmasta wrote:
| That's the beauty of it. If you're sure it's wrong, you can
| profit off the gambling and manipulation.
| Retr0id wrote:
| You can also profit off regular gambling and manipulation by
| buying stocks in gambling companies.
| bbor wrote:
| Or really day trading in its entirety, IMHO. Imagine I had
| a casino game that all the best experts insist you have
| slim-to-no chance of beating the odds on, and that
| countless hordes of people just like you have lost their
| life savings on. Is it not gambling just because you have a
| system for picking a spot on the roulette wheel?
| freefaler wrote:
| Every prediction market has a resolution date. Stock market
| does not. In that sense the prediction market "predicts" an
| external event on a particular date and this is the big
| difference. Stocks may rise of fall based on the perception
| of the market. A bet would get resolved based not on the
| perception of the people, but on the event itself. (or on
| the UMA dispute vote, but mostly the system is working).
|
| That's why it doesn't matter how skewed/wrong a particular
| bet is (like Trump chances). If your think that the market
| is wrong, you get a better return on your money. And the
| resolution date + smart contract creates the possibility to
| earn if you are correct.
| Retr0id wrote:
| However, many stocks pay dividends at fixed intervals,
| based on objective metrics.
| soneca wrote:
| Even if I know that is bullshit if someone claims to know the
| next number of a roulette and backs it up going all-in on
| black, it is not rational for me to bet on red.
| floobertoober wrote:
| But if their having placed a bet makes your opposing bet
| cheaper, then it can! : )
| boilerupnc wrote:
| At least one person has figured out how to beat roulette
| [0]. I'd follow his lead
|
| [0] https://archive.ph/Hc0Kh
| tshaddox wrote:
| The thing about gambling is that even if you understand the
| nature of gambling it doesn't mean you can reliably win money
| from gambling.
| bbor wrote:
| Sure you can, especially if you're rich! You just can't
| reliably know when you can reliably win money ;)
|
| Epistemology strikes yet again
| freefaler wrote:
| It's not a random chance gambling like a casino. It's more
| like active stock trading. Many traders (especially retail)
| lose money, but many make money.
|
| Polymarket is good when you understand the situation better
| than the people you're betting against. And the bet you're
| making can be on what you know.
|
| My first 100 USDC I've made was when the CrowdStrike news
| hit. I saw a bet that it was a "hack". As a programmer I
| knew it wasn't a hack based on the technical information I
| read. The bet was 70 not a hack/30 hack. I bet that is was
| not a hack and got 30% return for 2 days.
|
| Many people "bet" everyday. Every resource allocation
| decision is a bet. Polymarket is the same. Don't bet on
| "what will Trump say" or "the price of BTC in a week", but
| there a plenty of bets where you can make a reasonable
| prediction and get consistent returns.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > It's more like active stock trading.
|
| That is also random chance gambling.
| freefaler wrote:
| If it was, than people like Buffet, Stan Druckenmiller or
| Jim Simmons wouldn't exist.
|
| They are trading and they are making bets. Simmons makes
| milions of them everyday :), Buffet makes 1 per month.
| But they are active stock traders not a passive index
| investors.
| selectodude wrote:
| Well, not Jim Simons. He's dead.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| There are lots of shades of random. When the three-photon
| photoelectric effect will happen is random, but if you
| can find a way to bet against it, unless the odds are
| ridiculously skewed, you should.
| immibis wrote:
| But the odds _are_ ridiculously skewed - that 's how it
| works. They're skewed so the house always wins, which
| means the customers, taken together, always lose. If
| everyone's betting against the three-photon photoelectric
| effect, you will be able to multiply your money by
| precisely 1.0 when your bet comes true and it doesn't
| happen, or maybe even 0.999.
| rurp wrote:
| It depends on what you mean by reliably. There's always
| short term variance, often a lot of it, but a player with
| an edge will absolutely win reliably in the long run.
| iwontberude wrote:
| Except the people who know best are in the US and can't file
| 1099 on their winnings without implicitly admitting to a
| crime. Any American dumb enough to invest in Polymarket
| deserves to lose their money.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you're sure it's wrong, you can profit off the gambling
| and manipulation_
|
| Not if you're American and want to respect the law!
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Right, but I'm also ethically opposed to the industry
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Statistically speaking, I'd expect some hardcore sample bias,
| if using Polymarket to model the US population.
| ErikAugust wrote:
| The biggest bettor is French, apparently:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/polymarket-says-mystery-
| trump-...
| ajross wrote:
| So, that's true. But the point of the linked article is that
| Polymarket is clearly _marketing to US consumers_ , a market it
| isn't licensed to serve and that it claims it tries to prevent
| (via an IP block, anyway).
|
| It's not illegal to be running a gambling and manipulation site
| per se. PredictIt and Kalshi do it above board. Polymarket
| appears to be engaging in at least a little bit of fraud here.
| floobertoober wrote:
| For me personally, I placed a bet for my non-favored candidate
| so that either my person wins, or I win some amount of money.
| I'm using it kind of like insurance or hedging. Unfortunately
| if enough people use it this way, it probably no longer works
| as a predictor
| ttamslam wrote:
| I thought about doing this as well but ended up viewing it
| personally as a "lose-lose" for myself rather than a "win-
| win". I wonder if that says anything about my risk-aversion.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It means you are not a degenerate gambler. You probably
| also do not enjoy slot machines, or the bullshit that
| passes for card games in a casino. I want to play
| blackjack, not "blackjack" where you change the allowed
| bets and rules specifically to increase the house edge
| thank you very much.
| fhdsgbbcaA wrote:
| Betting markets can be good predictors but I think what poly
| market is reflective of is not people who are looking for the
| optimal bet; but wish casting of crypto bros.
| beejiu wrote:
| It seems strange to me to call these "prediction markets" when we
| call them "betting exchanges" in the UK. It positions the goal of
| the market to make a prediction or a forecast, rather than simply
| being a bet. It's interesting framing.
| Rhapso wrote:
| yeah, i think they forget that they could also be a fairly
| direct hedge-market.
|
| Invest as if A will happen. If the odds seem right, bet ~A will
| happen too.
| fsckboy wrote:
| if you believe in the wisdom of crowds, they are prediction
| markets. If you discount the wisdom of crowds, they are pure
| gambling.
|
| I think they started being called prediction markets around the
| idea a few years back that we should allow "gambling" on events
| to predict events: if you allow betting on the date of the next
| terror attack, the terrorists will not be able to restrain
| themselves from insider trading, and bingo, you know when there
| will be a terror attack. The idea was that it was such a good
| idea, the FBI/CIA would run these things. But the public hated
| the idea so it got squelched.
|
| This is all from my memory, which I wouldn't bet on.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if you believe in the wisdom of crowds, they are
| prediction markets_
|
| With capped bets and broad participation, you have a wisdom
| of crowds game. That's not how Polymarket is designed.
| ajb wrote:
| There's the problem that betting on assassinations or terror
| attacks is a deniable way of funding them. Because the
| perpetrator is the one who knows to bet on the correct date.
| One guy was prosecuted for proposing this, if I recall
| correctly
|
| Oh yes, it was Jim Bell:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-05 23:01 UTC)