Sure. I was pointing out that providing a market to anonymously sell illegal information skirts the rules. Whether or not this is a net good is subjective. Similar to having bets on whether so and so vip is still alive on a particular date. It means “notanassasin007” can buy in to that bet the day before and assassinate the vip.
Actually isn’t liquidity a problem? Let’s say someone is really really certain a specific vip will die. (Queue a movie scene of someone assembling a sniper rifle with their laptop open to polymarket). But if the killer tries to bet a million dollars their max gain is the funds invested on the other side of the betting book.
Sure. I was pointing out that providing a market to anonymously sell illegal information skirts the rules.
That seems misleading. “essentially you’re saying is X” is saying “a collary of what you are saying is X”.
The phrase “illegal information” isn’t very straightforward. A doctor does have legal obligations about not disclosing certain information about their patients but a lot of insider information isn’t subject to legal obligations against revealing it.
It’s illegal to trade stocks based on insider information but it’s not illegal to tell other people a lot of insider information about a company outside of stock trading.
Actually isn’t liquidity a problem?
The liquidity tells you about the value of the given information that you are providing to the market.
Sure. I was pointing out that providing a market to anonymously sell illegal information skirts the rules. Whether or not this is a net good is subjective. Similar to having bets on whether so and so vip is still alive on a particular date. It means “notanassasin007” can buy in to that bet the day before and assassinate the vip.
Actually isn’t liquidity a problem? Let’s say someone is really really certain a specific vip will die. (Queue a movie scene of someone assembling a sniper rifle with their laptop open to polymarket). But if the killer tries to bet a million dollars their max gain is the funds invested on the other side of the betting book.
That seems misleading. “essentially you’re saying is X” is saying “a collary of what you are saying is X”.
The phrase “illegal information” isn’t very straightforward. A doctor does have legal obligations about not disclosing certain information about their patients but a lot of insider information isn’t subject to legal obligations against revealing it.
It’s illegal to trade stocks based on insider information but it’s not illegal to tell other people a lot of insider information about a company outside of stock trading.
The liquidity tells you about the value of the given information that you are providing to the market.