points by seki285 5 days ago | 0 comments
A week ago if you dared to say anything critical of polymarket you would be drowned out in replies talking about the "wonderful societal benefits" of gambling on daily life and how it "informs decision making" and helps the "common people".
[–] mahboi 5 days ago
I liked it for political races as an alternative to polls. Was terrible for several other things. 99% of it was really just sports betting, which I can't see being a good thing.
[–] baggachipz 5 days ago
The genie's way out of the bottle with sports betting. Nonstop ads, branding tie-ins, billboards, podcast ads, on and on.
And it's terrible and going to destroy sports.
[–] kube-system 5 days ago
We don't need more financial incentive to influence the outcome of elections, there's already enough as it is.
[–] rbanffy 5 days ago
> I liked it for political races as an alternative to polls.
With enough funds, smaller political races can be gamed.
[–] mahboi 5 days ago
Yeah that too, so only the big ones. Obviously the law can't distinguish since it's all the same kind of gambling.
[–] rbanffy 4 days ago
The law can always distinguish the intent, which might be hard to prove, but not impossible. For instance, a PAC making large bets would raise a lot of suspicion. One Brazilian fugitive currently in the US has injected about a billion dollars in the form of bets on a Brazilian betting company, and that has caught regulators' attention.
[–] nilamo 5 days ago
What in the revisionist history? Polymarket has been getting shit on here since it debuted.
[–] freejazz 5 days ago
Not really. I can recall countless threads where everyone said that this improves information availability. Do you want me to go through my post history to find them?
[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago
you must be from an alternate timeline
Bots Rule Everything Around Me BREAM dollar dollar bill yall.
like, of course the gambling halls drop big money on online marketing