soulofmischief 19 hours ago | next |

I fail to understand the issue.

Both parties offer huge financial incentive to different groups of people for ensuring their victory by voting. We have entire industries based around this.

Both candidates play to large corporations and benefactors, and money drives the election. It's part of why our election system is so broken.

How is a prediction market worse than this such that it requires legal intervention?

llamaimperative 19 hours ago | root | parent |

You don't understand the issue because there's pretty much zero information about "the issue." The CEO of Polymarket is under FBI investigation. That's it. That's all the information anyone has. There's nothing "to understand" at this particular moment.

soulofmischief 16 hours ago | root | parent |

Surely you understand that I'm speaking with respect to the information provided by the article's source, regardless of its veracity.

mossTechnician 20 hours ago | prev | next |

I wonder if it has anything to do with this:

"Polymarket Paid US Social Media Influencers for Election Content"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-05/polymarke...

blackeyeblitzar 15 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

It probably has to do with that. They paid for election content, but did not encourage betting. It just looks like general marketing for a platform.

A more egregious example of paying for election content is the alleged scheme of a candidates paying for endorsements. To me that seems much more deceptive and fraudulent.

dzhiurgis 19 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

Amazing. Musk is famously anti-short selling, yet put millions against Kamala.

bayarearefugee 8 hours ago | root | parent | next |

I don't care enough about Musk to know what his views on short selling are but him betting against Kamala is not remotely similar to short selling.

Betting "against" outcome A is absolutely no different than betting "for" outcome B when there are only 2 possible outcomes of the election, its entirely semantics.

And there is no unlimited downside to the bet like there (theoretically) is with short selling.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 18 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

What does a political bet have to do with one selling company stock because they think the company will not continue to perform well in the market?

xyst 19 hours ago | prev | next |

I can’t believe nypost hit pieces and propaganda are posted here. Article has no substance and goes completely off speculation.

If the raid was legal, then there will be a judge that signed off on the warrant. If nypost had any journalistic integrity, they would follow up on that except this is a celebrity tabloid at best.

avalys 19 hours ago | prev | next |

It seems more likely that this guy / this company did something shady and is trying to claim "political persecution" to distract attention from his actual misdeeds, than that the FBI is actually persecuting him, on behalf of the side that everyone universally acknowledges lost the election, a week after the election for running a website that correctly "predicted" they were going to lose. What would be the point of that?

legitster 19 hours ago | prev | next |

> Coplan was not provided any reason for the incident, but the source said they expect it is political retribution since Polymarket accurately predicted Trump’s win – not traditional polls.

> The government is likely trying to accuse Polymarket of market manipulation and rigging its polls in favor of Trump, the source said.

The tabloid is rage baiting here. Prediction markets are still borderline illegal, and even ones done under the scrutiny of regulators (like PredictIt) are constantly investigated and close to being shut down.

I could think of a number of large number of possible reasons that the FBI would want to raid an international, anonymous crypto-betting marketplace and almost none of them have to do with media pollsters (which are different than the private polls the campaigns ran, mind you!) convincing the FBI to raid the CEO. Especially considering the polls were not that far off and Trump won within the margin of error of the polling!

blackeyeblitzar 20 hours ago | prev | next |

Is this one of those actions that the Biden administration is trying to rush through before they leave office? To me as a taxpayer this feels like a waste of our resources. Why spend any effort on this instead of any number of other things, crimes with actual victims.

bangaroo 20 hours ago | root | parent | next |

there are a lot of problems with what you said, but to list a few:

- the president doesn't directly control the fbi and i would argue that history shows the fbi is not particularly biased towards the democratic side of the ticket.

- the ny post is bordering on a tabloid - it's not good journalism, and if you look, this story is basically just being carried by crypto news sites and well-known tabloids like the post and the daily mail.

- what do you think is more likely - that they're cracking down on polymarket for "correctly guessing" the outcome of a 50/50 election? or maybe that the guy running a weird political bookmaker is engaged in some shady financial nonsense on the side?

the only source saying that this is related to their "correct guess of the election" is unnamed and says it's their speculation. there's no proof.

this is an occam's razor situation. the timing may be coincidental, but i would be shocked if the biden administration chose to enact its political vengeance on the ceo of a lottery site.

readthenotes1 19 hours ago | root | parent | next |

"history shows the fbi is not particularly biased towards the democratic side of the ticket."

Peter Strozk and his lover might disagree with you

knowaveragejoe 19 hours ago | root | parent |

This is one example in a sea of counter-examples.

readthenotes1 15 hours ago | root | parent |

Since 2015? You get the Comey divulging yes Clinton had sensitive emails (but not Clinton's SoS office prioritized access based on donations to hen's(1) charity as shown in those emails).

But a sea? I'd like to see...

(1)Gendered pronouns are usually nonsense. I've appropriated the Swede's in most of my writing because the gender of the person I'm pronouning is almost always irrelevant, as in this case)

blackeyeblitzar 19 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

The FBI is an agency of the federal government and therefore under executive control, right?

As for timing - I would not be shocked because there have been so many articles detailing how the administration and various politicians or special interest groups are pushing to implement various last-minute actions before they lose power. Why would the administration have less authority or urgency in the case of this agency versus any other?

cheema33 19 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

> the president doesn't directly control the fbi

Mostly true. Until Trump swears in next year. He has promised to be a dictator, at least part time. And supreme court already ruled that nothing he does would illegal. As long as he claims it was it was done as an "official act".

Simulacra 20 hours ago | prev | next |

The government is likely trying to accuse Polymarket of market manipulation and rigging its polls in favor of Trump, the source said.

That is ridiculous, like saying a betting website can rig a football game. I guess it's possible but an election? This feels like Lawfare.

llamaimperative 20 hours ago | root | parent | next |

I would recommend not trusting an unnamed source's interpretation of another party's actions. They're not describing what they saw or what they know, they're describing what they think.

indoordin0saur 19 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

If they are going with that theory they should also investigate the pollsters who put out suspiciously positive polls that seemed designed to drive enthusiasm for Harris the week before election. I'm thinking specifically of that infamous Iowa Selzer poll.

adventured 20 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

They didn't say Polymarket rigged the election, you interpreted that incorrectly.

Simulacra 19 hours ago | root | parent |

Article specifically says Polymarket, quote taken directly from the article.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 19 hours ago | root | parent |

Yes, the source is claiming that the government is likely to accuse Polymarket of rigging their predictive analysis about the election ("polls" but apparently they don't actually poll), not the election itself.

blackeyeblitzar 20 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

My mind also went to lawfare, which there has been so much of from this administration and various states - not just concerning Trump but also Elon.

Why care about this website that very few people have even heard of? Because it was the one place that did not predict a very close election outcome? Nate Silver accused pollsters of herding given all of them were painting every race as a toss up, and this seems like a good alternative source of information.

llamaimperative 20 hours ago | root | parent |

> Why care about this website that very few people have even heard of?

Probably because there was credible belief of a criminal act, and probably not for the reasons that an unnamed source an NYPost article is conjecturing.

josefritzishere 20 hours ago | prev |

If a gambling site predicted winners fraudulently, and enouraged you to bet on them... that's fraud. It doesnt matter if you win or lose. Both predicting and taking those bets is begging for that conflict of interest to arise. This guy could go to prison.

ars 19 hours ago | root | parent |

> predicted winners fraudulently

How does someone do this fraudulently? Didn't they predict thing based on how people bet? Are you implying they faked the bets?

> and taking those bets

From my understanding they don't take bets, they match people who bet with each other.

Simulacra 19 hours ago | root | parent |

Basically, it doesn't make any sense. Why did they wait until after the election?

llamaimperative 19 hours ago | root | parent |

One obvious reason being that if they did it before the election, it'd definitely be considered election interference. DOJ has a policy of not taking major enforcement action in the political sphere for some period before an election.