Is it polymarket presenting this ability to detect insiders? Or is someone trying to sell the service of detecting insiders to those wanting to know if bets are on equal footing? (or wanting to follow insiders? or wanting to hide your identity by making multiple accounts? Are there per-account fees, when polymarket might encourage people to make multiple accounts?)
Regardless, polymarket seems to be on balance corrupting, by monetizing and normalizing use of inside information, which violates agency principles. It's not clear that it really offers hedging or predictive benefits.
When trading firms do better (after data discovery and analysis), there's some evidence they're better than other firms, and you can trust them with some money. But when there's a public prediction market, the only benefit is to the insiders.
Post author here: To clarify, this is not a post from Polymarket.
This is talking about using Compound AI (product I'm working on) to query Polymarket data, including finding insiders, just as a fun example analysis you could do.
Often you need a well-calibrated probability of a future event to feed into some other analysis, and Polymarket is pretty great for that. An example is how much insurance (hedge) to buy for some disastrous event.
> Regardless, polymarket seems to be on balance corrupting, by monetizing and normalizing use of inside information,
This is a common take on "inside information", but for most people this opinion is totally unaligned with their own goals.
The people who benefit from "no insider trading" in any market, are a small group of active traders, some institutional, some not.
For literally everyone else, insider trading is a net win. Insider trading improves price discovery. If you passively invest then you benefit from the price being more accurate when whatever fraction of your paycheck goes into the market.
I don't know your own situation, maybe you are one of those few traders who needs information to spread a certain way in order to make money. For everyone else, don't be fooled into promoting an idea against your own interests.
In fact, a lot of people claim that the main point of prediction markets is to give the general public better predictions, and insider participation actually helps with that.
This is missing the primary reasons insider trading is bad, which are that it's an information theft incentive against employers, and worse, that it's a sabotage incentive.
Clearly the people who benefit from insider trading in any market are those doing the insider trading, not all market participants.
The argument is not that Polymarket et al are "insider trading only" but rather that insider trading in those markets is not regulated so people can get ahead of trades based on confidential information and make a lot of money off of all the suckers gambling their money away on ridiculously frivolous bets.
If you don't see the problem with that, you're complicit, misinformed or brainwashed.
A similar issue is that of market manipulation, since many markets in these platforms can be directly manipulated by participants in manners as easily as spamming some words on an earnings call.
I think you might misunderstand the value preposition. Polymarket wants insider trading. That's the whole point. They'll eventually cave in to PR pressure and deviate from the original purpose, though.
>But when there's a public prediction market, the only benefit is to the insiders.
false.
all the conclusions economists draw in microeconomic theory about efficient markets are based on pricing that reflects symmetric information. secrets are asymmetric. trading on inside information drives the market price in the direction it should be moving, making the market more efficient, a benefit to all participants in the market.
this is not a defense of trading on inside information, simply pointing out the mechanics.
We're not solving for efficient pricing at the expense of one insider reaping all the benefits because they already either knew or set the price before hand.
This is largely the classical objection to prediction markets. But prediction markets do have value to outside of the markets because people want to know the future.
Prediction markets should be accurate, not fair. If people want to gamble without doing the work of finding some alpha, they should head to a casino, not a prediction market.
The real alpha on Polymarket isn't in trying to predict events better than the market -- it's in the market microstructure. Price discrepancies between Kalshi and Polymarket on the same event can persist for minutes because the two venues have different participant bases and settlement rules. Kalshi is USD-settled with KYC, Polymarket is USDC on Polygon with pseudonymous wallets. And because Polymarket's CLOB runs on-chain, you can literally watch competing bots' strategies by tracing their contract interactions.
yes, they allow you to pay people who have information about the future for that information, in a distributed manner. this is great if, like many people, you want information about the future.
The prediction market itself is a ouija board. You're given a number. You don't know who's moving the needle or why. You don't know what you're paying for. Maybe you're paying for information from people who are breaking someone's trust by giving it to you? Or maybe you're paying them to make it happen?
Although, sometimes a market provides incentive to publish information that's associated with the market being influenced. For example, someone can do an investigation, short the stock, then publish it.
Historical records, notably by Herodotus, confirm that the Persian Empire used gold to bribe Greek Oracles, turning "divine prophecy" into a psychological warfare tool.
This mirrors a core flaw in Polymarket: profit maximization is not truth-seeking. Just as Persian bribes manipulated ancient morale, modern "whales" can distort market odds to manufacture narratives or hedge external interests. In both cases, the prediction is a commodity sold to the highest bidder rather than an objective forecast of reality.
Information about the future without power to do anything about it (except bet on it), like is the case for most information and most people, is useless.
They also allow people to convince those who trust that prediction markets are accurate barometers of likeliness that certain events will be likely with a meager amount of money.
Isn’t this the motivation behind polymarket? To incentivize those that have information to bet as a signal of “truth”. What I don’t get is why would anyone bet on this stuff that don’t have insider information besides those with gambling addiction.
It's not just a gambling addiction, but many people consider themselves smarter than the average person, and nature's way of punishing these people is creating things like stock markets and polymarkets.
There’s also a vague argument around hedging some actual risks that some market participants genuinely want to hedge… which depends a lot on the specific bet. Eg hedging exposure to specific political events, wars or even company announcements can be relevant and worth a premium for non-insiders. Where there’s a premium to be collected there are speculators to do so.
It is for people like me. I'm usually right about things before other people even know about them. Bought BTC in 2011, ETH in 2014 (funded the IPO), Tesla in 2013, Microsoft right when they replaced Ballmer (at $30 I think), Nvidia on the Covid crash day in 2020, learned Rust in 2017, took AI seriously two weeks after ChatGPT 3.5 launched. I never had any insider information. I typically have a good feeling for things.
Great! So how do I follow your moves? Ideally the prediction market would have a way where traders like this filter to the top, but then making that information known would impact the market itself.!.!.
But “making lots of bets” is a measure of your appetite for risk, not your acumen. So unless you are filthy rich (in which case, kudos!) I think you are more proving parent’s point.
Seems more like a hobby activity than a decision that would lead to any practically meaningful outcome. Since as you said, you were already a billionaire in 2017 any money you could make by writing software yourself seems insignificant
If you're talking about crypto mining, all of the big smart contract platforms that can run something like Polymarket are running on proof of stake. Their energy usage is comparable to any other internet protocol with a similar amount of traffic.
The insider vs. lucky forecaster problem is actually tractable statistically. In equity markets, informed trading detection uses a combo of signals: order size relative to market depth, timing proximity to the resolution event, and cross-market correlation (same entity appearing in related contracts).
For onchain prediction markets specifically, the pseudonymous addresses are actually more traceable than people assume - you can cluster wallets by funding source patterns and behavioral timing even when fresh addresses are used. Sophisticated actors know this and route through mixers, but most don't bother.
The deeper problem PollardsRho hints at: if known insiders crowd out calibrated forecasters (who rationally won't participate when they expect to be adversely selected against), you get a market that's accurate but thin and fragile. That's the classic adverse selection death spiral prediction market designers have been trying to solve. Polymarket's bet-sizing dynamics actually mitigate this somewhat - insiders can't take all the liquidity without moving price against themselves.
there is some inevitable "insider trading" in commodities markets. for example if you're a giant agricultural company, and you want to hedge the price of soybeans, you have some extremely relevant insider information about the soybean market. but you're still allowed to trade soybean futures. very different than securities.
if prediction market contracts really are regulated as commodities, then presumably a lot of insider trading must be legal, although there must be limits of one kind or another and probably if you do something really egregious you might be prosecuted under some legal theory.
An agricultural company hedging the price of soybeans is precisely hedging, not speculation. The insider information they have is their supply/demand/pricing picture. That's different than the colloquial definition of insider information which I've always taken to tie to event occurrence (or not).
There is 100% insider-trading and manipulation of prediction markets. It's absurd some of the markets that are created. The most glaring example was this years super bowl halftime show. They had markets on songs Bad Bunny would sing, which song he would sing first, etc. You're telling me the thousands of people who had access to practices and information would not wager on this?
Readit News
Is it polymarket presenting this ability to detect insiders? Or is someone trying to sell the service of detecting insiders to those wanting to know if bets are on equal footing? (or wanting to follow insiders? or wanting to hide your identity by making multiple accounts? Are there per-account fees, when polymarket might encourage people to make multiple accounts?)
Regardless, polymarket seems to be on balance corrupting, by monetizing and normalizing use of inside information, which violates agency principles. It's not clear that it really offers hedging or predictive benefits.
When trading firms do better (after data discovery and analysis), there's some evidence they're better than other firms, and you can trust them with some money. But when there's a public prediction market, the only benefit is to the insiders.
This is talking about using Compound AI (product I'm working on) to query Polymarket data, including finding insiders, just as a fun example analysis you could do.
Often you need a well-calibrated probability of a future event to feed into some other analysis, and Polymarket is pretty great for that. An example is how much insurance (hedge) to buy for some disastrous event.
This is a common take on "inside information", but for most people this opinion is totally unaligned with their own goals. The people who benefit from "no insider trading" in any market, are a small group of active traders, some institutional, some not.
For literally everyone else, insider trading is a net win. Insider trading improves price discovery. If you passively invest then you benefit from the price being more accurate when whatever fraction of your paycheck goes into the market.
I don't know your own situation, maybe you are one of those few traders who needs information to spread a certain way in order to make money. For everyone else, don't be fooled into promoting an idea against your own interests.
Clearly the people who benefit from insider trading in any market are those doing the insider trading, not all market participants.
The argument is not that Polymarket et al are "insider trading only" but rather that insider trading in those markets is not regulated so people can get ahead of trades based on confidential information and make a lot of money off of all the suckers gambling their money away on ridiculously frivolous bets.
If you don't see the problem with that, you're complicit, misinformed or brainwashed.
A similar issue is that of market manipulation, since many markets in these platforms can be directly manipulated by participants in manners as easily as spamming some words on an earnings call.
The more accurate the markets get, the greater the incentive for insiders to spoil it.
That doesn’t benefit anyone but the insider and probably has a net negative on everyone else.
false.
all the conclusions economists draw in microeconomic theory about efficient markets are based on pricing that reflects symmetric information. secrets are asymmetric. trading on inside information drives the market price in the direction it should be moving, making the market more efficient, a benefit to all participants in the market.
this is not a defense of trading on inside information, simply pointing out the mechanics.
Deleted Comment
That sounds like "insider trading" machines, or "scam" machines, rather than truth machines.
Although, sometimes a market provides incentive to publish information that's associated with the market being influenced. For example, someone can do an investigation, short the stock, then publish it.
This mirrors a core flaw in Polymarket: profit maximization is not truth-seeking. Just as Persian bribes manipulated ancient morale, modern "whales" can distort market odds to manufacture narratives or hedge external interests. In both cases, the prediction is a commodity sold to the highest bidder rather than an objective forecast of reality.
like if 50 ppl vote A, 45 people vote B and 1 person who actually knows their shit votes B?
How do you find it? By amount?
Some have better models that predict with higher accuracy, given the same data.
I bought one lottery ticket, I don't think my odds are gonna get any better than that.
Some might even say Dirac like but I so NO, this simply does not go far enough.
I will remember this moment for the remainder of my life. Thank you.
Seems more like a hobby activity than a decision that would lead to any practically meaningful outcome. Since as you said, you were already a billionaire in 2017 any money you could make by writing software yourself seems insignificant
For onchain prediction markets specifically, the pseudonymous addresses are actually more traceable than people assume - you can cluster wallets by funding source patterns and behavioral timing even when fresh addresses are used. Sophisticated actors know this and route through mixers, but most don't bother.
The deeper problem PollardsRho hints at: if known insiders crowd out calibrated forecasters (who rationally won't participate when they expect to be adversely selected against), you get a market that's accurate but thin and fragile. That's the classic adverse selection death spiral prediction market designers have been trying to solve. Polymarket's bet-sizing dynamics actually mitigate this somewhat - insiders can't take all the liquidity without moving price against themselves.
if prediction market contracts really are regulated as commodities, then presumably a lot of insider trading must be legal, although there must be limits of one kind or another and probably if you do something really egregious you might be prosecuted under some legal theory.