play

  • A Polymarket user made over half a million dollars after betting that Iran leader would be ousted.
  • The trades have reignited debate over prediction markets, with critics warning that the platforms may allow people with advance or insider knowledge of military actions to profit from war.
  • A poll from UNH found that majorities of Granite Staters believe it should not be legal to bet on election outcomes (59%) or political outcomes like wars or the passage of bills (61%).

As sports betting gains popularity, so too does betting on geopolitical events like the war with Iran – and most Granite Staters don’t approve, reveals a new poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Just hours before Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed by U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Feb. 28, a mysterious Polymarket user made a series of bets that he would be out of power and ended up making over $553,000. And in January, a separate Polymarket user turned roughly $32,000 into more than $436,000 by betting that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be removed from power before the end of the month. 

The trades have reignited debate over prediction markets, with critics warning that the platforms may allow people with advance or insider knowledge of military actions to profit from war.

A poll from UNH, released March 17, found that only 1% of New Hampshire residents have placed a bet on a prediction market and nearly half have never heard of them (with younger people more likely to be familiar with them). However, majorities believe it should not be legal to bet on election outcomes (59%) or political outcomes like wars or the passage of bills (61%).

79% also think that insider trading should not be allowed on prediction markets, including large majorities of all age groups.

Overall, only 2% of Granite Staters think that prediction markets will have a positive effect on the United States over the next 10 years.

The poll surveyed 1,309 people online from March 12 to March 16. It has a margin of error of +/-2.7%.

New England lawmakers introduce bill to ban prediction markets

On March 17, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., introduced a bill to ban wagering on government actions, terrorism, war, assassination and events where an individual knows or controls the outcome, saying that people are “profiting off war and death.”

“There’s no getting around the fact that any prediction market where somebody knows or controls the outcome of a bet is ripe for corruption,” said Murphy in a statement. “When events that involve good and evil, life and death become just another financial product, morality no longer matters and the soul of America is fundamentally corrupted.”

The bill, which is co-sponsored by several other lawmakers including Rep. Gabe Amo, D-R.I., is one of several bills filed to crackdown on prediction markets in recent weeks.

The poll found that 44% of Granite Staters think the federal government should regulate prediction markets more. Only 6% think they should be regulated less. 

However, a slight plurality of Granite Staters (46%) don’t have an opinion on the federal regulation of prediction markets. 

Contributing: Fernando Cervantes Jr.

Source link