You know, I didn't expect the Insider Trading Casinos to be quite so brazenly evil. I really thought they'd have wanted to keep a lower profile, and not appear so urgently in need of being regulated or sued out of existence. They even had the template of "Sports Betting" to work from.
They don’t need to keep a low profile, they have the president and his family using their services for enrichment. They are immune from consequence, might as well advertise at maximum and unleash hell for the most gain.
This is why principled ethical behavior MUST be a cornerstone of acceptable behavior above greed. Even if you are washing and selling greed as “financial obligations” “capital interests” or some other corporate bullshit.
The incentive was already there without prediction markets, just like the incentive to screw with drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies that are publicly traded have been making drugs. Wherever there is a measurement tied to a monetary payout, unscrupulous people will try to manipulate it.
This doesn’t change anything since the incentive already existed before prediction markets, people are getting unreasonably emotional about prediction markets due to headline overload.
Creating a new incentive where one does not exist can create moral hazards, an easy example is introducing wildfire prediction markets.
If we bet on where fires will occur and I have empty pockets and a book of matches that's a little different than options trading.
As with most terrible behaviors when a few people do it the results to society aren't so bad. When it gains potential for mass application of the same behavior it becomes a crisis.
Options trading is particularly bad example, because the buyer can choose whether they exercise it or not. You can just let the option expire.
But yes, there is portion of "investing" that is actually gambling. That is what Enron did and it threw down the economy. Those gamblers usually loose and we have quite a lot of regulations trying to restrict the impact of that gambling.
And yes, the usual suspect hate those regulations.
From a moral perspective I don't think it is. From a more practical perspective... It's only tiny biotechs where the share price exactly tracks a single clinical trial. This opens up ways to make more specific bets
Binary bets on drug approvals for publicly traded biotech companies are no different than going long or short the equity of the biotech company.
The incentive to interfere in drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies have been publicly traded, this changes nothing.
Introducing wildfire prediction markets is an example of something that does not exist and would be reckless and stupid. The stock market already bets on drug trial outcomes.
You know, I didn't expect the Insider Trading Casinos to be quite so brazenly evil. I really thought they'd have wanted to keep a lower profile, and not appear so urgently in need of being regulated or sued out of existence. They even had the template of "Sports Betting" to work from.
They were already illegal! Why be careful, they know they’ve got the social trend and the regulatory bodies on their sides.
They don’t need to keep a low profile, they have the president and his family using their services for enrichment. They are immune from consequence, might as well advertise at maximum and unleash hell for the most gain.
This is why principled ethical behavior MUST be a cornerstone of acceptable behavior above greed. Even if you are washing and selling greed as “financial obligations” “capital interests” or some other corporate bullshit.
There have already been examples of people manipulating scientific readings to make a quick buck on a prediction market bet
https://www.npr.org/2026/04/23/nx-s1-5797876/polymarket-pari...
There are examples of people manipulating precipitation monitors to get crop insurance payouts: https://www.agweb.com/news/business/rain-robbers-how-four-fa...
The incentive was already there without prediction markets, just like the incentive to screw with drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies that are publicly traded have been making drugs. Wherever there is a measurement tied to a monetary payout, unscrupulous people will try to manipulate it.
This doesn’t change anything since the incentive already existed before prediction markets, people are getting unreasonably emotional about prediction markets due to headline overload.
Creating a new incentive where one does not exist can create moral hazards, an easy example is introducing wildfire prediction markets.
To be fair buying securities or derivatives ahead of a pharma results announcement is pretty common already.
Not to excuse these guys for all their other awfulness of course.
How is such bets any different than options trading? If one is reasonable I don't see why the other would be that much different.
If we bet on where fires will occur and I have empty pockets and a book of matches that's a little different than options trading.
As with most terrible behaviors when a few people do it the results to society aren't so bad. When it gains potential for mass application of the same behavior it becomes a crisis.
Unfortunately your example gets a little foggier once you consider options and futures during a period like the one the US is currently in with Iran.
Like when your buddies trade crude on weekdays but you get to flip the War switch on/off all weekend?
Biotech stocks for premarket drugs are functionally binary bets on the drug trial itself and have existed for a long time.
Wildfire prediction markets would be incredibly reckless and dangerous.
The two situations are not even close to being the same.
Options trading is particularly bad example, because the buyer can choose whether they exercise it or not. You can just let the option expire.
But yes, there is portion of "investing" that is actually gambling. That is what Enron did and it threw down the economy. Those gamblers usually loose and we have quite a lot of regulations trying to restrict the impact of that gambling.
And yes, the usual suspect hate those regulations.
It’s not, anyone claiming otherwise is arguing from an emotional position, not a rational one.
From a moral perspective I don't think it is. From a more practical perspective... It's only tiny biotechs where the share price exactly tracks a single clinical trial. This opens up ways to make more specific bets
is there a way to see the odds for all the kalshi bets without logging in?
Binary bets on drug approvals for publicly traded biotech companies are no different than going long or short the equity of the biotech company.
The incentive to interfere in drug trials has been around as long as biotech companies have been publicly traded, this changes nothing.
Introducing wildfire prediction markets is an example of something that does not exist and would be reckless and stupid. The stock market already bets on drug trial outcomes.