[HN Gopher] Polymarket refuses to pay bets that US would 'invade...
___________________________________________________________________
Polymarket refuses to pay bets that US would 'invade' Venezuela
https://archive.ph/sthzF
Author : petethomas
Score : 209 points
Date : 2026-01-07 02:25 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ft.com)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _A prediction market user made $436k betting on Maduro 's
| downfall_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46508582
| lesuorac wrote:
| It seems the user's genius has been missed.
|
| Not only did they correctly hold a Yes bet about Maduro they
| also "correctly" made a bet about the US invading Venezuela and
| then they _sold_ it early at 18c for a profit as opposed to
| holding it to maturity (which would've been a "no").
|
| They also did this the correct hold vs sell-early on 4
| contracts.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Okay blocked by paywall but other sites say Polymarket won't pay
| because it says operation to kidnap Maduro is not the same as
| invading.
| dinkleberg wrote:
| This is a tangent, but man the world of traditional news sites
| must be really suffering. I've been noticing more and more that
| have this model where you can't see anything until you pay up.
| I have to assume they've tested it and found this approach
| works best, but I'm not signing up for your newspaper before I
| can even see the quality of the journalism. Back with print
| newspapers you could just buy a copy before getting a
| subscription. Now to get a taste you've got to pay for the $1
| trial which will auto-convert into a $75/mo subscription. And I
| wouldn't be surprised to learn that to cancel that trial
| requires a phone call to a service rep.
| UltraSane wrote:
| A lot of sights actually use very sophisticated prediction
| models to decide on what users and when to show paywalls.
| llbbdd wrote:
| It seems like this would happen all the time on Polymarket unless
| the specific terms are laid out at the outset of the bet. Like,
| how many American soldiers is an invasion?
| recursivecaveat wrote:
| Oh it does lol: https://www.wired.com/story/volodymyr-zelensky-
| suit-polymark...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Like, how many American soldiers is an invasion?
|
| Depends entirely on what they're doing.
|
| One could be an invasion. A million might not be. (https://en.w
| ikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_military_inst...)
| hnburnsy wrote:
| 150 aircraft is not an invasion?
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Only if a Democrat sent them, according to MAGA-connected
| sources I've read.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| Number of aircraft don't seem to contribute to whether or not
| it's classified as "hostilities", much less "invasion". Is this
| ridiculous ? Certainly. But it's fairly par for the course in
| terms of politically complex issues in the USA.
|
| The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 sets a 60-day limit for
| U.S. forces in hostilities without a formal declaration of war
| or congressional authorization, allowing for a potential 30-day
| extension for withdrawal, totaling 90 days, after which the
| President must remove troops.
|
| Airstrikes on Libya (2011): Obama administration argued they
| did not need Congressional authorization because the operations
| did not constitute "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers
| Resolution. Therefore, the Obama administration argued, the
| 60-day clock never started.
|
| The bombings involved 26,500 sorties over eight months,
| including 7,000 bombing sorties targeting Gaddafi's forces.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| It depends on what you do with the aircraft.
|
| Also, on-the-day commentary about "regime change" was very much
| premature. A "regime" is not a single person, it is a ruling
| group, a system (1). The existing regime in Venezuela is still
| very much in place. It is undergoing change for sure, even
| having a crisis (2). But as this implies, it has not yet been
| swapped out for something else.
|
| 1) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/regime
|
| 2) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/caracas-
| venezu...
| tastyface wrote:
| So... Maduro was captured solely for his *personal* crimes?
| If not, then why was he captured?
| watwut wrote:
| Dictionary defition is "when an army or country uses force to
| enter and take control of another country".
|
| They went in and out. They used force to enter, but they did
| not took control of another country. The government and regime
| is basically intact, maybe with some bruised ego assuming
| existing players did not tacitly allowed this to happen to
| promote themselves.
|
| Functionally, the situation is very similar to the situation
| from before the event, except there was some display of force
| and it was made clear someone inside is cooperating with usa.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-vows-us-in-charge-
| ven...
|
| >"Don't ask me who's in charge because I'll give you an
| answer, and it'll be very controversial," Trump told a
| reporter.
|
| >He was then asked to clarify, to which Trump replied, "It
| means we're in charge."
|
| Whether or not he's right, the US President's words seem to
| reveal an intent for the actions to result in the US being in
| control of Venezuela.
| notahacker wrote:
| Or it means Trump saying what Trump always says, whilst
| also being extremely clear that he's negotiating with
| Venezuela's VP, who is busy asserting equally implausibly
| that Maduro is the country's only president to her own
| audience of people that believe whatever the government
| says.
| wat10000 wrote:
| And yet they're directly contrary to what actually
| happened. We're not actually in charge and haven't made any
| visible attempt to take charge.
|
| It might happen, if Trump doesn't get distracted by a shiny
| object first, but it hasn't yet.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| What Trump means is that he has kicked the Venezuela
| government in the balls in order to coerce them.
|
| Trump is a mob boss. He considers himself "in charge" of
| them now because he has clearly dominated them, expects
| them to comply with his future demands, and will continue
| to use force against them in the future if they don't do
| what he wants.
| burkaman wrote:
| Does this mean that any time an invasion fails it
| retroactively doesn't count? For example, the Bay of Pigs
| event universally known as the "Bay of Pigs invasion" was not
| an invasion because the US never took control of any
| territory?
| moralestapia wrote:
| I don't expect people to answer to this comment as it makes
| the situation absurdly clear.
|
| To me, it's simple, a foreign army enters your country in
| violation of your sovereignty? That's an invasion.
|
| They kidnapped the president, lmao, what else could be more
| against the sovereignty of a nation.
| shmel wrote:
| Who knows? Might have been a special military operation,
| right? /s
| jltsiren wrote:
| Do you mean that if the US Marine Corps takes some
| foreign territory by force, it's not an invasion, because
| there is no army involved in the operation?
|
| Vague everyday language is unsuitable for contracts. When
| there are multiple reasonable interpretations, it's
| impossible to know what has been agreed. It's better to
| be pedantic and use precise language and narrow technical
| definitions of words.
| moralestapia wrote:
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/army
| yorwba wrote:
| The invaders took and held some territory near the Bay of
| Pigs for about three days, and they were planning to stay a
| lot longer if the fighting had gone their way. Whereas for
| a raid, a withdrawal is also planned in case of mission
| success.
| monocasa wrote:
| The plan was to use Maduro's capture as the mechanism for
| continued exertion of control.
|
| It just didn't work.
| terminalshort wrote:
| The bombing of Dresden involved thousands of aircraft and it
| was not an invasion.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| https://archive.ph/meJqK
| ekjhgkejhgk wrote:
| To add, that's not the same as "not paying out", it's settling in
| the opposite direction.
| londons_explore wrote:
| And my understanding is polymarket themselves don't have much
| financial incentive to settle one way or the other.
| pests wrote:
| I think its a bit more complicated than this. Disputed
| outcomes are decided by votes from UMA token holders, which
| are anonymously owned. I remember reading a theory (with
| evidence, can't find the article now) that the venn diagram
| between Polymarket owners/stakeholders and UMA whales is
| close to a circle.
| xorcist wrote:
| I am surprised to learn this.
|
| Can you influence outcomes on Polymarket by purchasing
| enough UMA tokens?
|
| Why would people accept this? Especially if ownership is
| anonymous and could overlap with market actors?
| margalabargala wrote:
| People will accept it as long as it mostly operates in an
| expected manner and they get their payout.
|
| People are very good at convincing themselves that
| because something has not happened, therefore it will
| not.
|
| When UMA is eventually abused to make a lot of money,
| then perhaps things will change.
| krunck wrote:
| But it will feel pressure from a certain government that
| want's to convince people that it did not "invade" but rather
| "policed" Venezuela.
| gambiting wrote:
| I don't think this government particularily cares about
| convincing people about anything, they are just doing
| whatever they want public opinion be damned.
| monocasa wrote:
| Maybe.
|
| I've found that dishonest bookies will commonly bet when they
| have insider information or some way to push the outcome in
| one direction.
|
| That's why the mob both employs bookies and pays boxers to
| throw fights.
| dbbk wrote:
| It's not settling though is it? Surely it's open until the US
| does it? I don't think it's timeboxed
| galkk wrote:
| Idk for certain, but it feels like very bad decision on
| polymarket's side.
|
| If they start engage in such technicalities, eventually it would
| mean that typical bet should be several screens long
| lawyerspeak/legalese, like EULA, otherwise it can be just
| rejected more or less arbitrary, based on wordplay, and that will
| scare off potential bettors.
| jjmarr wrote:
| Standard Polymarket legalese for invasions requires the goal of
| indefinite "control of territory" for this reason.
|
| Raids don't qualify.
|
| This issue already happened with the war in the Middle East
| when Israel engaged in cross border raids that weren't intended
| to establish permanent control.
| lukev wrote:
| Yeah but Trump said "we're gonna run the country for now."
|
| Do declarations by heads of state not count?
| Aloisius wrote:
| Why would speech count as action?
|
| Am I running if I say "I'm running now" while I sit in my
| chair?
| shimman wrote:
| Well the difference is you're a random commentator and
| the other is the sitting US President. One person's words
| matter more than the others, at least globally, I'll
| leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure it out.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Speech is not action regardless of speaker.
|
| I don't care if the almighty comes down, waves their
| tentacle and says "let there be light" - if it's still
| dark after their pronouncement, then anyone who bet a
| light would appear should lose the bet.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance
|
| Trump's declaration that he is taking over Venezuela fits
| pretty comfortably within this category.
|
| In your terms, a light did appear. You're right that the
| light is not directly connected to the utterance. But
| since the argument above that there was no invasion is
| premised on a lack of intent to invade rather than on the
| invasion not having happened, the utterance disproves
| that.
| toss1 wrote:
| It does in situations where the speech is itself an
| action. E.g., "I declare the meeting open", or "The race
| starts when I say 'Go'... Take your marks, Set, Go!",
| etc.
| burkaman wrote:
| The language says "if the United States commences a
| military offensive intended to establish control over any
| portion of Venezuela".
|
| Emphasis on "intended to". Speech does count as
| intention, even if you haven't successfully achieved
| whatever you say you're doing. If the President says the
| US intends to control Venezuela, then the Polymarket
| statement is true.
| jjmarr wrote:
| The military has to intend to control territory in the
| occupation sense. That means controlling the land, not
| the government. "Venezuela" refers to the land not the
| state.
|
| All the Israel markets have clearly established this
| interpretation. Israel has done many raids intended to
| influence foreign governments, but not to control
| territory, and those markets didn't count as invasion.
|
| There are other markets if you wanted to speculate on
| regime change or any kind of military action, but
| "invade" has a specific meaning.
|
| This happens every single market and it's free money for
| people that understand the rules.
| burkaman wrote:
| I don't use Polymarket so if this is the established
| precedent then that's fine, but I will maintain that it's
| a crazy interpretation of the word. One country's
| military violently ___ing another country and taking
| prisoners with the explicit goal of controlling that
| country is clearly an invasion. I'm struggling to think
| of another verb that could work in that sentence.
|
| Edit: I guess "raiding" as you say, but that's a tactic
| used during a war, and apparently we aren't at war. If
| Israel had announced after a raid that their intent was
| to control the target country, then I would say their
| raid was actually an invasion.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Pretty clear the US intends to control the oil fields.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Speech can certainly be an action.
|
| "I'm running now" doesn't make you jog if you're sitting
| down, but it certainly kicks off a campaign if you were
| considering elected office.
|
| JL Austin called these sort of statements "performative
| utterances" and there's a lot of linguistic debate about
| them. Nevertheless, "I declare war", uttered by someone
| with the power to do so, is pretty unambiguously an
| example of one.
| gvedem wrote:
| head of state or not, how much worth would you accord that
| man's word on anything?
| Y-bar wrote:
| I would trust Trump to deliver on political promises just
| as much as I trust Musk to deliver on industry ones.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Which promises, the benevolent ones, or the malevolent
| ones?
|
| Because those should earn two very different amounts of
| trust.
| notahacker wrote:
| Trump also said he won the 2020 election.
|
| (A relevant point is that people were still betting on
| Trump winning the 2020 election even after the results were
| out in part because it was _possible_ that Polymarket would
| side with his opinion, but it 's probably for the best they
| didn't...)
| elfly wrote:
| Yeah but that's still not an invasion. Does your boss
| invade your home every day you work at home?
|
| Boots on the ground, baby.
| burkaman wrote:
| There were literally boots on the ground. They left,
| because that's what happens when an invasion ends. It
| doesn't mean the invasion retroactively never happened.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Yeah we have a word for the other thing. An occupation.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| If the requirement was for the goal of _indefinite_ control
| of territory, this declaration doesn't match the
| requirement even if such declarations do count: he said the
| US will be running Venezuela during this transition (or
| "for now" in the particular version you quoted - of course
| his exact words do vary from moment to moment), not
| indefinitely.
| whycome wrote:
| how long is now?
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Depends, but some things it could mean include clear
| intent to end the situation within the foreseeable
| future, taking it outside some but not all definitions of
| indefinite.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If the requirement was for the goal of indefinite
| control of territory, this declaration doesn't match the
| requirement
|
| Yes, it does. "For now" has no definite endpoint and thus
| states that the mission targets indefinite control of
| territory. ("Until <clear objective endpoint>" is not, on
| the surface, indefinite, though if the endpoint is a
| fixed point in time but one of conditions that may or may
| not ever be met, it might still be indefinite if the
| criteria is _temporal_ definition, but "for now" is
| indefinite by any standard.)
|
| It does not target _permanent_ control, but permanent is
| distinct from indefinite.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| I've definitely seen media reports using language similar
| to what I said outside of my parenthetical, which I don't
| view as indefinite.
|
| I also don't find "for now" to be clearly indefinite, but
| I agree it depends on which of multiple definitions of
| "indefinite" you use, and it does fit some definitions.
| (Similarly, "permanent" also has multiple definitions,
| some of which overlap with some meanings of
| "indefinite".)
| Supermancho wrote:
| The US didn't kill all Iraqis, so it was just a "limited"
| military action or "raid" also? The intent was a nation
| removing the head of another nation to cede control of the
| nation to the invading nation. If you kill 1 or 100,000, it's
| still an invasion.
|
| If a nation assassinates a leader, then leave the country to
| their own devices (which may include a more friendly
| replacement), I could see the ground on this logic. NEITHER
| of these events (killing nor elected replacement) has
| happened. The US has asserted control.
| notahacker wrote:
| The US has asserted control with words and threats, not
| with sustained military presence or a successor not
| approved by the previous Venezuelan administration. The
| Venezuelan military has full control of its territory, and
| leadership has passed to the next in line to the Venezuelan
| presidency who even Trump acknowledges needs to be
| negotiated with to get the oil he wants, and is busy
| telling her own domestic audience Maduro is still her
| president.
|
| It's obviously far closer to assassinating a leader and
| leaving the country to its own devices than the complete
| destruction of the Iraqi army as a viable fighting force,
| installation of an entirely new government and extended
| military occupation, or even something like Russia's
| ultimately unsuccessful annexation of Kherson.
| tuwtuwtuwtuw wrote:
| So if you enter a country using a military force and
| arrest the president quickly enough, it's not an
| invasion?
|
| How slowly would it need to be done to be counted as an
| invasion? A day? A month?
| Reason077 wrote:
| Intent is important here. It's an invasion if the
| objective is to establish sustained military control over
| some portion of the country's territory.
|
| But if the intention is some other military objective:
| blow up a military base, kidnap a president, etc, and get
| out quickly, then I don't think the word "invasion"
| applies.
| adrian_b wrote:
| I have no idea who has decided that "invade" means
| "establish sustained military control".
|
| With certainty that is not the original meaning of the
| word. In Latin and in classic English, the meaning of the
| word is just: "enter in a hostile manner", as it can be
| verified in any dictionary.
|
| As long as foreigners have entered the territory of
| another country by force, that is an invasion.
|
| It does not matter which was the duration of the invasion
| or whether the intent of the invasion was to stay there
| permanently.
|
| An invasion may be followed, or not, by a military
| occupation, which is "establish sustained military
| control".
| terminalshort wrote:
| So then by your definition, Mexican drug cartels have
| invaded the US, right?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The real answer is that the people that set up the bet
| decided, and they listed the conditions upfront.
|
| And imagine how silly it would be if 1-5 soldiers came
| across the border by force and left a few minutes later
| and that counted as a major world event!
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _"I have no idea who has decided that "invade" means
| "establish sustained military control"."_
|
| Oxford Languages, for one, who provide the definition
| used by Google:
|
| invade /In'veId/ verb
|
| (of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to
| subjugate or occupy it.
| notahacker wrote:
| The relevant definition is already posted upthread...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If you sent in a small strike force they could probably
| stay there indefinitely without qualifying.
| terminalshort wrote:
| There's certainly a fuzzy line there somewhere, but the
| Maduro raid is clearly on the non-invasion side of it.
| This operation was much more similar to the Bin Laden
| raid than to even the smallest operation that could be
| considered an invasion.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > The US has asserted control with words and threats, not
| with sustained military presence
|
| The presence is global. The threat is the same as anyone
| taking over another country. This is some serious hair
| splitting.
| notahacker wrote:
| The presence is not in Venezuela. Sure, they can threaten
| Venezuela's new president, just like they can (and do)
| threaten other countries that they have not invaded
| [recently] and having a powerful military _not_ in
| Venezuela adds a certain credibility to those threats,
| but that doesn 't change the fact its the successor under
| the Maduro administration's rules, not theirs, and she's
| able to publicly insist that Maduro still the president!
| The threats of dire consequences if she doesn't do what
| they want are precisely because they don't control the
| country.
|
| It's really not "serious hair splitting" to point out
| that they haven't "invaded" a country they haven't even
| attempted to maintain non-covert presence in,
| particularly not when you've conveniently provided the
| perfect analogy of a state assassinating a leader and
| then letting them pick a successor who might be more
| convenient.
| rat9988 wrote:
| What is the difference between having the militaire have
| boots in the ground to kill you if you don't comply, and
| having military in the border next to you to kill you,
| bomb you or kidnap you if you don't comply?
| notahacker wrote:
| One involves an invasion having already occured and the
| other doesn't. Making this distinction is literally the
| subject of the entire thread.
| watwut wrote:
| USA is not meaningfully in control of Venezuela. They
| have no more control then a week ago.
|
| Venezuela regime did not changed either. The same
| generals and politicials remain on power, altrough there
| is bound to be some power struggle between them.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| If threats and global military presence count as invasion
| then the US has invaded a lot of countries lately, and I
| don't think that's right.
| terminalshort wrote:
| In Iraq the US entered with a force numbering in the
| hundreds of thousands and occupied the country for years.
| That's what makes it an invasion, not whether the leader
| was the target. The US didn't remove Saddam Hussein when
| they attacked in 1991 and that was still, beyond any doubt,
| an invasion.
| jjmarr wrote:
| "Control" refers to military occupation of territory. Boots
| on the ground.
|
| No part of Venezuela (referring to its sovereign territory)
| was indefinitely occupied by the USA. That's why the market
| is "No" right now.
|
| The number of dead people isn't relevant here.
|
| Polymarket rules sometimes diverge from what you might
| consider an "invasion", but those are the pre-agreed upon
| and standardized rules.
| yorwba wrote:
| Where do I find that standard legalese on Polymarket?
| https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-us-invade-venezuela-
| in... only shows some "additional context" added after the
| fact.
|
| Edit: I see now that you have to select one of the possible
| dates, scroll down to the rules section, and then expand it.
| NickC25 wrote:
| yeah but the difference is with Israel, they didn't literally
| take a foreign country's leader hostage and extract him out
| of the country.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Polymarket users will remain foolishly optimistic for longer
| than it takes for Polymarket's reputation to collapse,
| unfortunately.
|
| Predictions and betslop are a scourge on this poor and fiscally
| irresponsible nation.
| bostik wrote:
| This has already been the case for political and/or social
| impact events for years in the UK's betting exchanges. The
| settlement rules for any potentially hairy real-world event
| have to be _explicitly_ clear and account for all possible
| outcomes that might affect the resolution.
|
| When there's money on the line, I have years of hard evidence
| that arm-chair lawyers (ie. betting exchange clients) will do
| absolutely anything to find potential loopholes in settlement
| rules and argue that their bets should have paid off.
| joezydeco wrote:
| Excellent.
|
| I'll use that in my travel insurance claim because I've been
| stuck in the USVI all week and I'm confident my carrier will deny
| all claims because they will claim this is a declared/undeclared
| war, which is not covered. If this is a DEA extradition, I'm
| good.
| mindcrash wrote:
| Some Venezulean sources claim US troops on a helicopter initially
| tried to capture a beach to turn it into a beachhead and forward
| operating site but had to return to the battle group without
| successful deployment (or any deployment at all) after it came
| under Venezulean fire:
|
| https://xcancel.com/lolams768/status/2007845728333484207#m
|
| With this in mind, the abduction of Maduro apparently was a
| desperate "Plan B", and it looks like everything the Trump admin
| is saying now is being pulled right out of thin air because this
| op clearly wasn't executed as planned at all.
|
| Make of that what you will.
| afavour wrote:
| I'm not wholly convinced, I think you'd have had US sources
| corroborating that by now.
| notahacker wrote:
| Seems unlikely the US had scores of boats lined up for a well-
| planned invasion which they chickened out of at the first sign
| of return fire and then "desperately" captured the enemy
| president some miles inland in a relatively bloodless operation
| instead.
|
| A small detachment of US troops didn't succeed in taking some
| sort of secondary objective like taking out a coastguard
| station or comms node, maybe.
| jandrese wrote:
| I agree that it stretches credulity but one scenario is that
| they were promised the Venezuelan military would stand down
| and let the US conduct its operation with minimal resistance.
| If that was not the case then the minimal troops for the
| beachhead may have decided that the token landing for PR
| purposes was not necessary and bugged out.
|
| One of the strangest things about the entire operation is how
| the US left absolutely nobody behind to administer the
| country. Not even a consultant. The Venezuelan VP is now in
| charge and the government is largely intact. It's hard to see
| how this affects any meaningful change in the country. I did
| find it amusing that the opposition leader released a
| statement with her lips firmly planted on Trumps ass and even
| talked about "sharing" the Nobel Peace Prize just to see if
| he's enough of an idiot that such obvious flattery would
| work.
| viraptor wrote:
| > The Venezuelan VP is now in charge and the government is
| largely intact. It's hard to see how this affects any
| meaningful change in the country.
|
| It's a threat - "Do as we say or you're next." Which the US
| was pretty public and explicit about. They don't need
| anyone on site for that. It's not like they actually care
| what happens beyond the resources use.
| hamdingers wrote:
| >50 people killed is not a "bloodless" operation. Lets not
| minimize.
| terminalshort wrote:
| In terms of war that's basically nothing
| hamdingers wrote:
| Words have meanings and the operation was not bloodless.
| notahacker wrote:
| Words have meanings and the word _relatively_ present in
| the original sentence clearly indicates that it was a
| comparison with the many orders of magnitude more
| casualties that would be expected from a full scale
| invasion. Particularly when the consideration was whether
| the mission panned out as the US intended, and their
| priority is bringing their own troops home (which they
| apparently managed with only a few injuries), not sparing
| Venezuelans unfortunate enough to be at the other end of
| their weapons.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Forward operating site is not what you seem to think. It's
| more like a place to set up temporary comms support, recon
| support, maybe SAMs etc then skedaddle out of there (perhaps
| leaving the equipment behind for the duration of the
| operation). If the site cannot be clandestinely set up then
| it's often not worth trying. What parent described is
| perfectly reasonable
| notahacker wrote:
| If the US planned to invade rather than raid Venezuela, I
| don't think the inability to capture a single forward
| operating site clandestinely would lead to the entire
| operation being called off. If they didn't, the alleged
| beachhead is moot. They had boots on the ground when
| capturing Maduro too.
|
| What's more likely: the US "desperately" stumbled upon a
| capture of Maduro at almost zero cost to them after their
| real plan to seize Venezuelan territory went awry due to
| heroic Venezuelan defending as the parent implies, or that
| the intention was to capture and remove Maduro without
| invading and this was what they did, regardless of whether
| a few peripheral targets got missed?
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| IDK what you are saying but I don't think we disagree.
| Maybe I had meant to reply to parent comment instead of
| you
| terminalshort wrote:
| Sounds like BS to me. If the Venezuelan military has the
| ability to drive back an actual US military landing operation,
| then a deep raid into the capital would be impossible.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > US troops on a helicopter initially tried to capture a beach
| to turn it into a beachhead and forward operating site but had
| to return to the battle group without successful deployment (or
| any deployment at all) after it came under Venezulean fire
|
| That sounds unlikely. They have aircraft carriers and just a
| large modern navy but a helicopter comes under fire and they
| cancel the invasion?
| wat10000 wrote:
| How would they even know that? If this is true, then all they
| actually know is that an American helicopter was fired on and
| departed. They'd have no way of knowing why it was there, what
| was being attempted, why it left, or what the plans were.
| naasking wrote:
| Or that was just a distraction intended to obscure the true
| intent. Frankly that sounds a lot more plausible.
| mike_d wrote:
| > Some Venezulean sources claim US troops on a helicopter
| initially tried to capture a beach to turn it into a beachhead
|
| With a myoptic view of the battlefield it is easy to convince
| yourself that the distractions launched to keep the military
| busy were the primary objectives.
| QuesnayJr wrote:
| I don't know how Polymarket works. Were people betting against
| Polymarket, or was Polymarket just making book and someone else
| is on the other side of the bets.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| The latter. The other side now wins, in theory.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| I think most questions on polymarket use order books now. But
| they used to use AMMs (where people bet against polymarket) and
| their FAQ says some questions still use them
| lxgr wrote:
| Were the liquidity pools backing the AMMs actually operated
| by Polymarket?
| lxgr wrote:
| > Is Polymarket The House?
|
| > No, Polymarket is not the house. All trades happen peer-to-
| peer (p2p).
|
| (from https://docs.polymarket.com/polymarket-learn/FAQ/is-
| polymark...)
| TZubiri wrote:
| > Is Polymarket The House?
|
| This term is a bit ambiguous, and there's some nuances that
| make it different from both sportsbooks and poker.
|
| They don't ever take a nominal cut, their revenue model is in
| holding USD deposits and making money of interest.
|
| > No, Polymarket is not the house. All trades happen peer-to-
| peer (p2p). The documentation is purposefully misleading, but
| it's true that unlike a sportsbook, they don't take the risk
| of bets. It's a classic case of a blockchain company
| exaggerating to what extent they are on the blockchain and to
| what extent they are centralized and just minimally wrapping
| the blockchain, like when NFTs were actually a URL to an
| image.
|
| Trades do NOT happen p2p, polymarket functions as an escrow,
| payments are sent to polymarket accounts and released by
| polymarket. Each prediction market does have their own
| contract, but Polymarket staff rules on each event through
| off-chain (although they are based on the wording used in the
| specific event).
|
| New events are solely released by polymarket staff (although
| users can 'suggest' markets).
| lxgr wrote:
| > Polymarket staff rules on each event through off-chain
|
| Theoretically, no. Predictions are resolved through UMA, a
| decentralized stake-based oracle system, which is at least
| theoretically decentralized.
|
| Practically, I have no idea how big the overlap between
| Polymarket staff and UMA stakeholders is.
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| clickbait headline. Polymarket doesn't decide
|
| https://docs.polymarket.com/polymarket-learn/markets/how-are...
| giarc wrote:
| Who are Uma token holders? I'm assuming some token people can
| buy? Could someone not corner that market, then make a ton of
| longshot bets, then dispute them all and win every case as
| majority Uma token holder?
|
| "After the debate period, Uma token holders vote (this process
| takes approximately 48 hours) and one of four outcomes
| happens:"
| Agreed3750 wrote:
| That is true. UMA tokens are just a coin on the blockchain
| that can be bought. The resolution is put up for a vote.
| People can vote by staking their tokens and the losing
| side(s) lose their tokens. The winning side are rewarded the
| tokens of losing sides. In theory you can just buy out these
| votes with enough money/tokens
| Scea91 wrote:
| UMA's security model assumes the cost to corrupt the oracle
| exceeds the profit from corruption. It is quite interesting
| because it doesn't consider the Polymarket side at all in
| the calculation.
|
| Doesn't this whole model break down when the Polymarket
| market far exceeds UMA's market cap?
| forgotTheLast wrote:
| Wouldn't UMA tokens increase in value proportionally to
| Polymarket's market cap, considering they're basically a
| unit of control of that market cap?
| Scea91 wrote:
| I am pretty low confidence here but I think in theory it
| should but in practice there is no mechanism enforcing
| that?
|
| UMA's current market cap is $68M. There are some
| Polymarket markets far exceeding that.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Seems like a good call. This was a quick in and out raid, not an
| invasion. To be an invasion there needs to be a sustained on the
| ground presence of the invading force. If this is an invasion,
| then the Bin Laden raid was also an invasion of Pakistan.
| ryandvm wrote:
| [flagged]
| thechao wrote:
| That's just a rescue op, bro.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Correct. That would not be an invasion because it is pretty
| obvious that extraction raids are not invasions.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Open to running the experiment!
|
| Ultimately, "invasion" is one of those terms that gets used
| for rhetorical effect more than a concrete claim about the
| world. If you think the US "invaded" Venezuela, and I think
| it's better to say they "attacked" Venezuela and "kidnapped"
| the president, we're not normally going to get into an
| argument about it - we'll just each use the terms that make
| sense to us, since we clearly agree about the facts of the
| terrible thing that happened. But Polymarket has to force the
| dumb semantic argument because they have to resolve the
| prediction one way or another. (One of the reasons to be
| skeptical of prediction markets as applied to geopolitics.)
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't be snarky._"
|
| " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation
| of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to
| criticize. Assume good faith._"
|
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| yibg wrote:
| That would start a war / be an act of war, but probably not
| an invasion no.
| whycome wrote:
| They amassed critical pieces of military hardware off the coast
| (carriers, warships, helicopters, planes). They took out
| military infrastructure. They placed radar systems throughout
| the region. Just because it was fast and met its goal doesn't
| mean it wasn't an invasion. You don't need an on-the-ground
| force when you control everything that can go in and out.
| terminalshort wrote:
| And the bombing of Hiroshima leveled an entire city. Still
| wasn't an invasion.
| ux266478 wrote:
| While true, the US did actually invade Imperial Japan. They
| captured nearly all the Ryukyu islands before the atomic
| bombings.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Yes, that's an invasion! And the Japanese invaded the
| Aleutian Islands during WWII. Taking even a barely
| inhabited frozen rock by force is an invasion. Has
| nothing to do with the scale of destruction.
| Reason077 wrote:
| "Invasion" implies the intent of sustained military
| occupation/control over some portion a country's territory.
| There's no suggestion that was ever the objective here.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Idk, Trump seems to have strong intent to control the oil
| production.
| WackyFighter wrote:
| Agreed. However what happened Jan 3rd wasn't an invasion.
| WackyFighter wrote:
| That doesn't make it an invasion. It was a capture/extraction
| operation.
|
| Was it a large scale one, sure. But it was not an invasion.
| tastyface wrote:
| Bin Laden was not the president of Pakistan.
| anon84873628 wrote:
| Dictionary definition of "invasion" and "invasive" with regards
| to military incursions tend to emphasize the size of the force.
| Same for "invasive species" and invasion biology.
|
| But you can also have an invasion of privacy or invasive
| surgery. In that sense it is about unwelcome intrusion into
| one's body / sovereignty.
|
| And people are entertained by news articles with titles like,
| "10 times countries accidentally invaded their neighbors."
| Clearly the intent to violate sovereignty matters.
|
| I think you can argue that the Bin Laden raid _was_ and
| invasion into Pakistan. Anytime a military forces enters
| uninvited, that 's an invasion.
| nabla9 wrote:
| The bet uses it's own definition.
|
| It's written there.
|
| I'm looking at it right now but not copy pasting it here.
| WackyFighter wrote:
| No that is not the definition of a military invasion.
|
| > An invasion is a military action consisting of a large
| armed force of one geopolitical entity entering the territory
| of another with the goal of militarily occupying part or all
| of the invaded polity's territory, usually to conquer
| territory or alter the established government.
|
| What happened on Saturday was not an invasion. It was an
| extraction/capture operation. It was a large scale one, but
| they left after they captured Maduro and his Wife.
|
| > I think you can argue that the Bin Laden raid was and
| invasion into Pakistan. Anytime a military forces enters
| uninvited, that's an invasion.
|
| No it wasn't. When they killed Bin Laden they didn't "invade"
| Pakistan. They infiltrated, then assassinated him and left.
| kritiko wrote:
| It was an extraction/capture operation "with the goal... to
| alter the established government"
| hannahstrawbrry wrote:
| If somebody breaks into my house, fucks my shit up and leaves,
| are they not guilty of home invasion anymore because they
| didn't stick around for long enough?
| roenxi wrote:
| Arguing over whether a different situation qualifies as a
| different sort of invasion doesn't move the conversation
| forward as much as you might intuit.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Is Stuxnet not a virus because it isn't genetic material
| inside a protein capsule? It's almost as if words have
| different definitions depending on the context.
| hannahstrawbrry wrote:
| Well if Polymarket says it's not because they use that
| definition who are we to say words have meaning? It's all
| bullshit all the way down
| WackyFighter wrote:
| When you are referring to a military action, invasion has a
| particular meaning.
|
| The definition on Wikipedia seems reasonable:
|
| > An invasion is a military action consisting of a large
| armed force of one geopolitical entity entering the territory
| of another with the goal of militarily occupying part or all
| of the invaded polity's territory, usually to conquer
| territory or alter the established government
|
| What the US did wasn't a military invasion by that definition
| as they left after they grabbed Maduro.
| LorenDB wrote:
| Can we stop calling these platforms "prediction markets" and
| start calling them "gambling apps"?
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| They are closer to binary options on things other than stocks
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's gambling.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Depends
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's useful to keep the word "prediction" in there, and
| "gambling" implies almost total randomness so I'd rather use a
| word like "betting".
|
| "Prediction betting" maybe? "News betting"?
| thinkingemote wrote:
| In 1983 the US (actually) invaded Grenada:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Gren...
| drnick1 wrote:
| Heads I win, tails you lose.
| creatonez wrote:
| Wait... didn't they advertise some utterly perfect blockchain
| oracle that could resolve disputes in the most objective way
| possible? Is Polymarket overriding that, or is that system what
| is inevitably failing (due to it being impossible to solve the
| oracle problem, despite blockchain advocates' claims to the
| contrary)?
| lxgr wrote:
| That's a good point. I think the assertion that Polymarket is
| actively doing (or not doing) anything here is at least
| incomplete. As far as I know, resolutions are still via UMA,
| which is (at least formally) an independent entity. No idea how
| big overlaps in personnel and control are in reality.
| inetknght wrote:
| Good. Shame on anyone who makes bets on human lives.
| guessmyname wrote:
| I give permission to anyone to make bets on my human life, I
| don't mind at all :-)
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| Then I don't think you've thought your position through very
| well.
| nimih wrote:
| FWIW, this is usually called buying either "life insurance"
| or a "life annuity," depending on whether you want to take a
| short or long position. The underwriters of such bets tend to
| be reticent about offering them to 3rd parties, though, for
| what are probably obvious reasons.
| lxgr wrote:
| I don't think it's even legal in at least the US, also for
| obvious reasons.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Not really a counterpoint, but interestingly there used
| to be a fairly widespread practice of corporations buying
| life insurance for low level employees. It was often
| called "Dead Peasant Insurance", and when the employee
| died the corporation benefited.
|
| It never made an iota of economic sense -- if insurance
| underwriters are on the wrong end of that deal, they
| aren't doing their jobs very well -- but a number of
| large corporations would do it, and gleefully pocket the
| payouts when rank and file employees died.
| lxgr wrote:
| Are you sure you'd like random people putting a price on your
| head?
|
| A sufficiently liquid prediction market on a human life is
| indistinguishable from a bounty. That's exactly why you can
| only take out life insurance if you have some reasonable
| financial stake in somebody staying alive and not the
| opposite.
| csours wrote:
| See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-
| owned_life_insurance aka Dead Peasant Insurance.
| supern0va wrote:
| Well, the money is just going to people that bet differently on
| human lives.
|
| _Someone_ gambling on human lives is getting paid no matter
| what, though.
| terminalshort wrote:
| Yeah, fuck those life insurance companies!
| ilaksh wrote:
| It's yet to be proven that the oil situation there is really
| going to change. It could turn out to be a classic "Mission
| Accomplished" where X weeks or months down the line we see an
| actual invasion.
| nabla9 wrote:
| US did not invade Venezuela by the definition of the bet.
|
| >This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences
| a military offensive intended to establish control over any
| portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31,
| 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
|
| >For the purposes of this market, land de facto controlled by
| Venezuela or the United States as of September 6, 2025, 12:00 PM
| ET, will be considered the sovereign territory of that country.
|
| >The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of
| credible sources.
| ajross wrote:
| POTUS literally, _literally_ announced that the US had control
| over all (!) of Venezuela.
|
| Now, sure, that's kind of a lie. But (ahem) By The Definition
| of The Bet, actual control is not required. Only a military
| offensive _intended_ to establish control. What purer
| definition of intent can you have than the decisionmaker 's
| literal statement? QED.
|
| No, this is cheating. Now, sure, the bets placed seemed very
| likely to be fraudulent. Which is cheating too. But there's not
| "technically" here. Polymarket is playing games with its bets.
| And that's fraud, even if it's got company.
| lxgr wrote:
| Polymarket is not a broker, counterparty, or even resolver,
| so the only thing they can arguably be criticized for is
| hosting a market without a sufficiently clear definition of
| "invasion".
| ajross wrote:
| How can they not be a "broker" when they handled the
| transaction?! How can they not be a "resolver" when they're
| the ones refusing to pay based on their own determination?
|
| Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of
| (please cite) which does not apply here?
|
| With all respect, that's 100% bonkers.
| lxgr wrote:
| They don't handle transactions. It's a blockchain-based
| platform that they design and operate, but part of that
| design is that they don't hold money themselves, nor are
| they the arbiter to any of the markets hosted on their
| platform.
|
| > Also, what definition of "invasion" are you thinking of
| (please cite) which does not apply here?
|
| No idea what a better definition of "invasion" could have
| been, but the only one that's relevant for the resolution
| is that listed on the market description on Polymarket
| (which many traders don't even read, but that's a
| different story).
| hyperhello wrote:
| This argument seems to be about the real meaning of words
| versus their overloaded legal analogues. I can't imagine
| Venezuela's military kidnapping Trump, then saying they
| would run the United States now, being parsed like this.
| lxgr wrote:
| That's not my point at all. I'm only saying that your
| criticism and claims of fraud are probably directed at
| the wrong entity.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| There is an arbiter tho. That's the point of the article.
| Unless you tell us who inputs the bits for a bet, you're
| just spewing chatgpt bable.
|
| Someone flips the bits to the bet.
| nabla9 wrote:
| That's not what it says.
| reshlo wrote:
| Isn't it?
|
| > This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States
| commences a military offensive _intended to establish
| control_ over any portion of Venezuela between November 3,
| 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this
| market will resolve to "No".
| nabla9 wrote:
| The US attack had no intent to control territory. It was
| to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after
| intent, there must be _de facto_ control of the
| territory.
|
| 1. Attack intent to control did not happen.
|
| 2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not
| happen.
| tremon wrote:
| _Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there
| must be de facto control of the territory._
|
| The way I read it, the second paragraph serves as the
| definition of territory ("any portion of Venezuela"), not
| as a condition for resolving the bet. The invasion
| doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to have the
| intent you specified in 1.
|
| ...which makes the entire bet like quicksand, because it
| relies on the public statements from a regime known for
| its "inaccurate" messaging.
|
| The more interesting question for rules lawyers is
| whether the president itself classifies as "any portion
| of Venezuela" -- the claim doesn't explicitly limit
| itself to only geographical portions.
| monocasa wrote:
| Kidnapping the president of a country is very clear
| intent to exert control over a country.
|
| The second "de facto" part is about the preconditions of
| the bet, to define what is Venezuela versus the US.
| watwut wrote:
| Why is this downvoted? The argument is solid.
|
| USA did not achieved control, but its leadership apparently
| think they have it.
| lxgr wrote:
| Because it's blaming Polymarket for something not within
| its control, which is imprecise. TFA makes the same
| mistake, fwiw.
| cubefox wrote:
| That's a minor flaw but the comment seems mostly correct.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| It's almost like they were not going to pay up
| regardless.
|
| Might as well have bet "doll hairs"...
| lxgr wrote:
| They are paying up, just for the "no" outcome.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| They ARE, or INTEND to? It's not Jan 31, 2026 yet, so,
| AFAICT, only the "Yes" option can be short-circuited if
| it occurs. They can't pay the "No" side until Feb 1,
| 2026, right?
| lxgr wrote:
| Good point, so for completeness: They'll pay out either
| "Yes" or "No", but definitely not nobody or themselves
| (except if they're also "Yes" or "No" holders).
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Depends on what you mean by "achieved control".
|
| Is it having heavy influence over through proxies? You
| can't just snatch a guy like Maduro out of a country
| without some local help. Help that would presumably be
| aligned with you on goals.
|
| Or is it setting up a complete government like in Iraq,
| postwar Germany/Japan, etc.?
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Where are you getting "achieved" from? The wager only
| requires that the USA INTENDED to seize control.
| monocasa wrote:
| The bet doesn't specify that the US achieves control over
| Venezuela, only that they invaded with the intent to exert
| control over Venezuela.
| SllX wrote:
| There is nothing both public and credible to substantiate the
| claim by the POTUS.
|
| It's _possible_ we have de facto control of the regime
| through some backroom that only the Trump Administration
| knows about, but that's just speculative on my part. We don't
| _know_ this is actually the case, and thus far there hasn't
| been anything to substantiate the existence of such a thing.
|
| So we're at at a point where if put on the spot, gun to my
| head, I had to answer whether the United States controls the
| Government of Venezuela in any meaningful way, I would have
| to say "No" despite what Trump himself said. This is subject
| to change, pending further evidence made available to the
| American people.
| reshlo wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether the US actually has control, only
| that the military action was taken with intent to establish
| control.
|
| >This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States
| commences a military offensive _intended to establish
| control_ over any portion of Venezuela between November 3,
| 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this
| market will resolve to "No".
| SllX wrote:
| What the military actually did was a raid which captured
| Maduro and his wife, and likely took out _some_ of
| Venezuela's anti-air capabilities--for all the good they
| did them--in the process. As far as we know, that was the
| intent. Actually establishing control is an occupational
| effort.
|
| I see your argument, and I think it is even defensible
| but I think it falls short. An actual resolution to this
| question may require a judge to weigh in on the contract.
| hunterpayne wrote:
| The Chavez Museum was also destroyed...but no it wasn't
| an invasion. It didn't control land which is the
| definition in this case. The blockade provides de facto
| control which is what Trump is referring to.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Rubio literally said that the US could control Venezuela
| via the leverage they have.
| SllX wrote:
| I understand that he made that claim, but until we see
| something that effectively substantiates that claim, it's
| just words. Right now Maduro is in custody and being
| tried for the charges, but the regime he built is still
| in place, and as far as we know, not feeling any warm
| feelings about cooperating with us.
|
| Now realistically no one in that regime is any safer than
| Maduro was, but it's also a possibility they resist and
| carry on without Maduro. It's only been since Saturday.
| I'm not saying there's no world where Trump & Rubio are
| correct today or when they said it over the weekend, I'm
| saying that there is no public information substantiating
| those claims. Near as I can tell, it's a "listen to us or
| else" kinda deal, which could be enough, but then we
| would see the effects of that through cooperation with
| the Trump Administration.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Words that prove intent.
| jcranmer wrote:
| The current POTUS is not a credible source.
| NamlchakKhandro wrote:
| Why are we entertaining TDS ?
| devwastaken wrote:
| Venezuala government calls it an invasion. U.S left with
| the evidence, do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala
| or the elected president of the U.S?
| lxgr wrote:
| It seems like it would be common sense to trust neither
| party to the conflict to arbitrate such markets. That's
| why e.g. for presidential election, the criterion is
| usually a quorum of different news outlets and not either
| party running.
| Phelinofist wrote:
| > do we trust the fascist regime of venezuala or the
| fascist president of the U.S?
|
| FTFY
| NewJazz wrote:
| On the intent of the US administration?
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Yeah, actually. He's basically a spokesperson. A non
| credible one. Someone like Stephen Miller is more
| credible.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Obviously.
|
| The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US
| Government's goals. The actual statements made may be
| true or false.
|
| If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee
| that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was
| done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people
| to _think_ that Y was the reason X was done.
|
| That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant
| here, this is true for every President. They make
| statements in service of their agenda, not in service of
| the truth.
| thatcat wrote:
| This is the whole thing about polymarket, whoever writes the
| original bet can lawyer it to create a misleading impression of
| probabilities by defining an overly narrow or vague victory
| condition that they will interpret to their benefit to make
| more money.
| lxgr wrote:
| The conditions are public and (as far as I know) immutable,
| though. Getting language lawyered is part of the risk of
| taking such bets, which is why it's probably a bad idea for
| most laypeople to do it, except if they're hedging some other
| investment or something similar.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Yeah I think one could easily argue that the special military
| operation in Venezuela was intended to gain control over the
| country. Trump literally stated that his team, in particular
| lil Marco, would be running the country. Of course Rubio
| walked that back a little, explaining that we only have
| "leverage" (via Maduro's trial/pardoning), but that still is
| within the terms of the bet.
| BostonFern wrote:
| Contra proferentem or caveat aleator? That is the question.
| csours wrote:
| "against the proffer-er" vs "gambler beware"
| idiotsecant wrote:
| I think this is called 'being specific'
| strangattractor wrote:
| Sounds to me like they intend to control the oil production
| infrastructure which is land/territory within Venezuela - but
| what do I know.
|
| Isn't the entire Polymarket concept rife with ways to abuse the
| system? If I have insider knowledge I get shills to create a
| market for that knowledge - then make an extreme bet at the
| last moment. Seems sort of like betting the 49ers will not win
| the Super Bowl because you know that Purdy's kneecaps are about
| to be busted. Or large options trades the day before the Senate
| votes on Healthcare bills.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Naive view is it's suppose to create public interest measures
| with real valued results.
|
| Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to see something, eventually,
| like "X won't be seen in public after December 31st, 2026"
| essentially creating an assassination market.
|
| Basically, boil finance bros down to sociopathy.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Anyone who's done sports betting would already know this wouldn't
| pay out.
|
| I ended up losing a $500 bet in Las Vegas on a Soccer game
| because the game went into extra time. Even though the team I bet
| on won, the fine print didn't cover it and they took all my
| money. The betting companies are ruthless and will screw you in
| every way possible.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Did they even have "extra time" as an option? This feels like a
| scam if every bet "lost" their money.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| If the teams go over time it's a tie by (regular) game end
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Ah makes sense.
| dash2 wrote:
| Polymarket isn't on the other side of those bets though. It's a
| two-sided market. I don't think Polymarket even sets the terms
| of the bets, or adjudicates them?
| TZubiri wrote:
| You know there's crazy conspiracies and there's sensible
| conspiracies. That casinos are out to fuck you is a sensible
| conspiracy that no one doubts, so I will look like a naive
| idiot when claiming that the casino/sportsbook isn't actually
| out to get you in this case.
|
| What you ran into is a fairly standard term, and you were
| equally likely to be benefitted by it. If you would have bet
| that the team tied, and the match went to extra time before
| deciding on a victor, you would have gotten an unexpected
| payout.
|
| There's other ways they fuck you over, this just isn't one of
| them.
| lxgr wrote:
| > That casinos are out to fuck you is a sensible conspiracy
| that no one doubts
|
| I absolutely doubt it. Why would they even need to? Seems
| like much more risk and work than to just rely on negative
| expected values, the law of large numbers, and human nature.
| rmah wrote:
| Many people seem to be assuming some sort of bias on Polymarket's
| part. Without evidence, these seems unlikely as whichever side of
| the bet wins, Polymarket makes the same amount of $. That is,
| they have no stake in the outcome. The only time you can blame
| them is if they pay out to neither side and pocket all funds at
| stake. Which, as far as I can tell, no one is accusing them of.
| lxgr wrote:
| > pay out to neither side and pocket all funds at stake
|
| That's also not possible, as far as I understand. If the smart
| contracts are worth their salt, the only possible outcomes per
| binary option is to pay out in full to either "yes" or to "no"
| holders, not to any other unrelated party, including
| Polymarket.
|
| The real risk is somebody subverting a sufficiently large
| proportion of (anonymous, stake-based) arbiters on UMA, which
| is the on-chain entity that actually arbitrates outcomes and as
| such releases funds to one side or the other. Then, somebody
| could buy the "wrong" outcome tokens for cheap and flip the
| payout their way.
|
| No idea how feasible that is and which game-theoretic
| protections UMA/Polymarket have against that possibility, but I
| don't think we've seen a smoking gun for that yet.
| xorcist wrote:
| > whichever side of the bet wins, Polymarket makes the same
| amount
|
| How would we know if Polymarket was an active participant in
| these bets?
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| Not so great to bet on 97% chance Jesus not returning before 2027
| now
| mellosouls wrote:
| This may be a bit misleading.
|
| Polymarket settles bets via a blockchain-based voting mechanism
| which, in theory, reduces to a simple YES/NO decision based on
| two inputs: the contract wording and whether the specified
| conditions were met by the relevant date.
|
| While that sounds neutral in principle, in practice it's
| vulnerable to interpretation of ambiguous wording and to classic
| vote-weight effects, where financially motivated participants can
| tilt outcomes away from the most reasonable reading in order to
| profit.
|
| It's actually a genuinely interesting system and an unresolved
| design problem - one that Polymarket doesn't yet seem to have
| fully solved.
| max_ wrote:
| Look up "The Oracle Problem"
| fenlaw wrote:
| I wonder how much "insider trading" is going on within
| Polymarket. I wouldn't be surprised if major policy decisions
| have already been influenced in some way by it.
| advisedwang wrote:
| At least $400,000 worth:
| https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/maduro-polymarket-bet-a2e...
| kwar13 wrote:
| Polymarket uses UMA as the resolution mechanism. It's not quite
| Polymarket, but UMA. See Zelenskyy's suit last year.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-07 23:01 UTC)