←back to thread

Nobel Peace Prize 2025: María Corina Machado

(www.nobelprize.org)
522 points pykello | 1 comments | 10 Oct 25 09:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
haunter ◴[10 Oct 25 09:10 UTC] No.45536742[source]▶
~10 hours or so before the announcement bets on her skyrocketed on Polymarket

https://x.com/polymarket/status/1976434242386317640

Someone without any history whatsoever put 70k on her 5 hours before the announcement

https://x.com/polywhalewatch/status/1976499384373121488

Trump was never above 5-10% and out of nowhere she was the winner (see the 1 day market view) https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2025?t...

replies(4): >>45536815 #>>45537220 #>>45537258 #>>45540592 #
jychang ◴[10 Oct 25 09:20 UTC] No.45536815[source]▶
This isn't illegal but feels like it should be illegal. You don't see corporate officers trade their stocks right before a big announcement, because there are laws on it.

Other than the fact that polymarket is legally not a stock market, what really is the difference between insider trading on a stock market vs insider trading on polymarket? Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?

replies(8): >>45536850 #>>45536888 #>>45536910 #>>45536922 #>>45536963 #>>45537071 #>>45537128 #>>45538964 #
ur-whale ◴[10 Oct 25 09:33 UTC] No.45536910[source]▶
> This isn't illegal but feels like it should be illegal.

Why?

Is someone forcing you to place bets at gunpoint?

replies(1): >>45536940 #
eru ◴[10 Oct 25 09:39 UTC] No.45536940[source]▶
If you actually want to know 'why' people think so, have a look at all the discussions around insider trading in financial markets. No one is forcing you to buy stocks at gunpoint, either.

(And, yes, there are good arguments in favour of allowing insider trading in all markets, and a few against.)

replies(1): >>45538668 #
1. johnthewise ◴[10 Oct 25 13:18 UTC] No.45538668{3}[source]▶
It's easier to justify stock markets banning insider information because there are ignorant participants through their investment funds who we would like to protect. Why would we protect willing participants betting on arbitrary events? Even if we ban on this one too, should we in general be able to create a market that explicitly allows insider information for some arbitrary thing, insideinformationverywelcomemarket, where everyone is aware it's the main point of the market or shall we just protect these people from themselves?