Should Politicians Be Able to Use Prediction Markets? House Bill Proposes Ban

[Darker45]

If only there's a poll on this, I'm sure the answer is a resounding no. Politicians should be banned from using prediction markets. There's an extreme conflict of interest that gives them undue advantage.

My concern with Congressman Ritchie's bill, however, is that it seems to be limited in scope. I have only read it on the news. I haven't read the entirety of the bill itself, but it seems it only seeks the ban of government employees from making predictions if they have "material nonpublic information" about the particular market. That to me is kind of weak. Why shouldn't everybody in the government be prohibited from joining the prediction market?

[Z-tight]

but it seems it only seeks the ban of government employees from making predictions if they have "material nonpublic information" about the particular market. That to me is kind of weak. Why shouldn't everybody in the government be prohibited from joining the prediction market?

Except you can make a case of how we can possibly know for a fact who has 'material non-public info' or not. Because any politician without such an information is like every other gambler or predictor and some people could argue that they should be allowed to gamble like every other person. A blanket ban may be best to avoid all kinds of uncertainty and discussions of who knows what.

[TopTort777]

It seems to me that it is a good move ban politicians from participating in predictions. They should be busy with other things. Their focus must be set on how to work for the people, instead of how to earn using people. If politicians are allowed use prediction market that involves their decision, then they can lead by money, but not with correct choice. Like athletes are not allowed to bet on own games, politicians should not be allowed to bet ob political predictions.

[justinlamode]

On the thread, we also discussed if it is insider work or not, but it is obvious that it is insider work. I think it is a good idea to ban such government officials from accessing prediction markets.

It looks unethical for politicians to bet on things they are part of the actors. Just imagine Donald Trump betting on something that he can use his office to make it happen, that is absolute rigging. But in all honesty, even if politicians are banned from using the prediction market, they can easily do it through a friend or extended family member. I think this is a major problem of the prediction market, especially those that have to do with politics and governance which are very easy to get insider information.

[iv4n]

More laws and regulations... and maybe there's something good in it, but do you realize how easily it is to stay "undetected"? But at the same time, government agencies will have another law that allows them even more control. A sword with two edges...

Politicians are known to have dummies and cronies; they can access them and bet using these dummies and cronies, and manipulate bets with their inside knowledge of the situation.
Ban is good on paper, but they can't stop them from exploiting these prediction markets if they can't find a way to trace bets to the politician's camp. Without a system to do that, this ban is useless.

I can just share it once again:

The quote,
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws," is attributed to the Roman historian and senator Tacitus.

And they have a system to do that, but that system is selective...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc0pl1eWS2Q&list=RDDc0pl1eWS2Q&start_radio=1

For just about anything, they can bust us,
False advertising saying "Halls of Justice",
You tellin' the youth, don't be so violent,
Then you drop bombs on every single continent.

[Hispo]

It is pretty obvious to me that politicians should have not access to prediction markets, as they will always have access to privileged information which turns them into inside-traders, that attempts against the good faith of those who are willing participants of the prediction markets.
Still, I am afraid politicians would try to capitalize their knowledge anyways, if they got excluded from predictions markets, they could always ask a family member or friend to play beta in their behalf.

Still having a law which criminalized politicians participating on those markets would be a good first step in the right direction.

[salad daging]

It seems to me that it is a good move ban politicians from participating in predictions. They should be busy with other things. Their focus must be set on how to work for the people, instead of how to earn using people. If politicians are allowed use prediction market that involves their decision, then they can lead by money, but not with correct choice. Like athletes are not allowed to bet on own games, politicians should not be allowed to bet ob political predictions.

Agree that it is prohibited, but indeed a politician must be prohibited from any gambling practices because it tarnishes the name of the government, especially since many people think that gambling is considered bad.

Especially now that there is a prediction market, this is what is feared if politicians are allowed then they can use their authority in government to know what will happen in the future and they bet on the prediction market.

I don't know if all governments in various countries have clear rules prohibiting gambling for politicians?

[Odusko]

It is pretty obvious to me that politicians should have not access to prediction markets, as they will always have access to privileged information which turns them into inside-traders, that attempts against the good faith of those who are willing participants of the prediction markets.
Still, I am afraid politicians would try to capitalize their knowledge anyways, if they got excluded from predictions markets, they could always ask a family member or friend to play beta in their behalf.

Still having a law which criminalized politicians participating on those markets would be a good first step in the right direction.

Despite all that is being said concerning politicians having access to predictions market, they could still bet on event through proxy which means they can enter the market through their family members since only the politician is prevented and not his entire family, so on the long run we can't totally control this situation.

[Alphakilo]

It is pretty obvious to me that politicians should have not access to prediction markets, as they will always have access to privileged information which turns them into inside-traders, that attempts against the good faith of those who are willing participants of the prediction markets.
Still, I am afraid politicians would try to capitalize their knowledge anyways, if they got excluded from predictions markets, they could always ask a family member or friend to play beta in their behalf.

Still having a law which criminalized politicians participating on those markets would be a good first step in the right direction.

Despite all that is being said concerning politicians having access to predictions market, they could still bet on event through proxy which means they can enter the market through their family members since only the politician is prevented and not his entire family, so on the long run we can't totally control this situation.

We really can't control the situation because as rightly said, these politicians can use alternatives that bear other persons names or share the information as tip when discussing with friends and associates who care to listen and it would still not stop them from winning one way or another.
Although I think it is a wise step to prevent them from using their real names and identity to enter the predictions market because they have top tier information as compared to regular citizens who don't care nor bother about politics around their society.

[Akbarkoe]

We have talked about this quote on this forum and I think it is one of the reasonsg Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and 30 of his House of Representatives colleagues, including Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), are making a push to ban government officials from accessing prediction markets:

Earlier this week, Polymarket faced scrutiny after a trader won more than $400,000 on a bet that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be removed from office before the end of the month. Criticism focused on the timing of the bet, which appeared just hours before U.S. special forces apprehended Maduro.

On the thread, we also discussed if it is insider work or not, but it is obvious that it is insider work. I think it is a good idea to ban such government officials from accessing prediction markets.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/politicians-able-prediction-markets-house-213657314.html

Un must be enforced, and the law prohibiting politics from entering the prediction market must be included with its family for the fairness of the prediction market itself, I suspect that this is an unfair practice for some gamblers who cannot access information from political decisions taken, they politicians must get A1 info for action plans such as the case of the Venezuelan president yesterday, or the Fed's decision or other things, I strongly support this prohibition law.

[CryptSafe]

Politicians are wonderful sets of humans and can go to any extent to make sure they take advantage of occurrences and events to their own benefit ,so if they pass a bill for their ban on participating in the prediction market, it is fin,e but we never can tell who they work with because even if they do not take part in the prediction market, there must be someone working for them who would help them do the dirty job and share some percentage with them. So what is the point when they can still have their way wether banned or not.

[acroman08]

They should be banned from it. It creates a conflict of interest if politicians are allowed to use prediction markets and place bets on them. I don't know if people feel the same way, but I think it is dangerous if a politician has a conflict of interest, especially if the predictions have something to do with the economy, wars, politics, elections, etc.


This might be off-topic, but I think they should also be banned from buying/trading stock options.

[Synchronice]

I have never used Polymarket, so I have a question. Does Polymarket ask you to submit your ID before you deposit money? Or do they ask you to submit ID if you decide to withdraw a large amount of money from the website? I wonder about this because if they don't ask to submit ID, then who is there to stop anyone from doing anything? And even if they require ID from users, it's easy to bypass this restriction. It doesn't need a law, it can't be solved by a law because you just find a buddy, make him register on the website, you place a bet through him and then give him some percent of the winning, the rest stays with you.

[coin-investor]

We have talked about this quote on this forum and I think it is one of the reasonsg Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and 30 of his House of Representatives colleagues, including Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), are making a push to ban government officials from accessing prediction markets:

Even if this is approved, it will not stop politicians from participating; they can participate as a third party and spill the beans to their relatives or close friends to bet. Will they also ban their friends or relatives?

Betting on a platform like a prediction market is open to everyone, so for me it's pretty useless; it's just on paper to make it appear that politicians from the US aren't participating here, when in truth they can always do that.

[tabas]

If there will be no kyc to the prediction markets then they're still free to use it until someone catches them on the act.

I have never used Polymarket, so I have a question. Does Polymarket ask you to submit your ID before you deposit money?

AFAIK, it's a decentralized prediction market and they're not asking their users for their IDs. And that's why even this bill becomes a law, anyone is still free to use them anonymously even the politicians from the US.

[lombok]

We have talked about this quote on this forum and I think it is one of the reasonsg Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and 30 of his House of Representatives colleagues, including Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), are making a push to ban government officials from accessing prediction markets:

Even if this is approved, it will not stop politicians from participating; they can participate as a third party and spill the beans to their relatives or close friends to bet. Will they also ban their friends or relatives?

Betting on a platform like a prediction market is open to everyone, so for me it's pretty useless; it's just on paper to make it appear that politicians from the US aren't participating here, when in truth they can always do that.

Paper policies will never be able to stop the ambitions of political actors to gain off of every resultant policy they introduce. You should understand that the third party tool is also a long time tactic to escape any legal tussle and its continued publicity. It is necessary to be vigilant of the justice of the trading system in the result of state events since risks of information leak will always plague any decision process. It is a common cause of protecting the right to information of the citizens so that we have a much healthier economic order.

[bhadz]

I will be happy if this is also becomes a law in my country. That is because politicians here are known to be gamblers as well, not all. But many of them are, from the local positions up to the national. There are many of them that have been gambling whether it's the normal type of gambling, online or physical and with the use of these predictions market. Any type of gambling activity should stop them from doing so because it's not good for them as public officials being seen as gamblers as they're receiving salary from people's taxes.

[Darker45]

but it seems it only seeks the ban of government employees from making predictions if they have "material nonpublic information" about the particular market. That to me is kind of weak. Why shouldn't everybody in the government be prohibited from joining the prediction market?

Except you can make a case of how we can possibly know for a fact who has 'material non-public info' or not. Because any politician without such an information is like every other gambler or predictor and some people could argue that they should be allowed to gamble like every other person. A blanket ban may be best to avoid all kinds of uncertainty and discussions of who knows what.

Exactly, it should just be a blanket ban. The current bill gives the government a lot of hassles. What's considered material nonpublic info and what's not? Who are those who got hold of material nonpublic info regarding the next steps to be done with a dictator in Latin America? Who are those who have material nonpublic info about the negotiations in Ukraine or the situation in Gaza or in Taiwan or the sanctions against Russia? The list goes on. This is all unnecessary burden to the implementing agencies.

[GreatArkansas]

I have never used Polymarket, so I have a question. Does Polymarket ask you to submit your ID before you deposit money? Or do they ask you to submit ID if you decide to withdraw a large amount of money from the website? I wonder about this because if they don't ask to submit ID, then who is there to stop anyone from doing anything? And even if they require ID from users, it's easy to bypass this restriction. It doesn't need a law, it can't be solved by a law because you just find a buddy, make him register on the website, you place a bet through him and then give him some percent of the winning, the rest stays with you.

In U.S., I think it's really needed to undergo KYC before you can fund your account.
But in other countries, it's not needed, especially if you will deposit a small amount of funds or make small transactions. It seems to work like other normal gambling platforms where most of the time these verifications will triggers during large amount transactions.