France's main gambling sector regulator said on Friday it had instructed the country's internet service providers to block access to the Polymarket website, one of a number of online prediction…
I think the distinction is important. Gambling is random outcome. Prédiction means you could influence the outcome. Think of a terrorist betting on the timing of the next attack
It’s also gambling. But the potential for corruption is just on a whole other level; “gambling” is a euphemism for prediction markets.
I think it’s silly you’re getting downvoted over semantics; gambling has influenced outcomes, yes, technically, but it’s generally a self-contained game.
It is and it isn’t. The hand you get dealt is random (assuming no funny business) but the people who do consistently well are playing their opponents more than their cards.
If you’re influencing the outcome via some private mechanism that’s a crime and is in fact illegal (a little thing known as insider trading or cheating depending on how you go about it). So per your definition either you can’t influence the outcome in which case it’s gambling, or you can in which case it’s illegal and you’re committing a crime.
All that said I think the definition of gambling being truly random isn’t quite right. Gambling has always been about statistical outcomes because if it was truly random nobody would ever make any money off of it so nobody would waste their time. Remember the house always wins because they control the odds. These sites are just bookies in techbro clothing using marketing and legal loopholes to run illegal gambling sites.
Insider trading applies to securities. Polymarket bets are not securities.
Manipulation violates Polymarket’s ToS, but that’s not criminal.
Now, it might meet the legal criteria for fraud, depending on what one does. But that’s a “maybe.” I’d say that is far easier to get away with than insider trading. EDIT: Especially when hopping jurisdictions (which is not so easy with securities).
I think the distinction is important. Gambling is random outcome. Prédiction means you could influence the outcome. Think of a terrorist betting on the timing of the next attack
Actually, yeah.
It’s also gambling. But the potential for corruption is just on a whole other level; “gambling” is a euphemism for prediction markets.
I think it’s silly you’re getting downvoted over semantics; gambling has influenced outcomes, yes, technically, but it’s generally a self-contained game.
So poker isn’t gambling? Ok.
It is and it isn’t. The hand you get dealt is random (assuming no funny business) but the people who do consistently well are playing their opponents more than their cards.
If you’re influencing the outcome via some private mechanism that’s a crime and is in fact illegal (a little thing known as insider trading or cheating depending on how you go about it). So per your definition either you can’t influence the outcome in which case it’s gambling, or you can in which case it’s illegal and you’re committing a crime.
All that said I think the definition of gambling being truly random isn’t quite right. Gambling has always been about statistical outcomes because if it was truly random nobody would ever make any money off of it so nobody would waste their time. Remember the house always wins because they control the odds. These sites are just bookies in techbro clothing using marketing and legal loopholes to run illegal gambling sites.
Insider trading applies to securities. Polymarket bets are not securities.
Manipulation violates Polymarket’s ToS, but that’s not criminal.
Now, it might meet the legal criteria for fraud, depending on what one does. But that’s a “maybe.” I’d say that is far easier to get away with than insider trading. EDIT: Especially when hopping jurisdictions (which is not so easy with securities).