Those Bank of Canada rate markets on Polymarket already pull in about $100,000. Public servants could use non-public info to bet anonymously then nudge policy for personal gain. Section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Act forbids exactly that. I read the full text at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-1.9/. Crypto and VPNs make enforcement a nightmare though. The Ethics Commissioner needs to update the rules fast.
To be fair, that $100,000 is likely spread across overlapping trades across multiple markets and multiple winners in each (Polymarket likes inflating their total numbers the same way stock exchanges do using "trading volume" numbers). But it's already high enough that an insider looking for quarterly $20k bonuses could be tempted.
This is likely the least damaging reason why the criminal enterprise of the state should be rolled back to a handful of functions. Thoughts from a grumpy old libertarian.
> In what way are these opinions “highly valuable”?
Well, these opinions are arguably a lot more accurate than a polling company's survey of the small subset of the population that answers their phones to non-friends *and* is willing to take the time to answer questions.
I'm not a gambler, but I strongly suspect that gamblers would never put their money down unless they were absolutely convinced that they'd win. After all, many of those bets cost a lot more than a lottery ticket.
While the opinions expressed as bets are valuable as survey tools, I wonder how they might aso be manipulated. And it looks like we will need an Adjudicator of Outcomes for an independent “official’ version of what actually happened in any event.
The outcomes problem could theoretically be solved by existing Polymarket mechanisms: new markets can carefully define what metrics will define outcomes. But that won't solve the larger systemic insider trading threat.
Those Bank of Canada rate markets on Polymarket already pull in about $100,000. Public servants could use non-public info to bet anonymously then nudge policy for personal gain. Section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Act forbids exactly that. I read the full text at https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-1.9/. Crypto and VPNs make enforcement a nightmare though. The Ethics Commissioner needs to update the rules fast.
To be fair, that $100,000 is likely spread across overlapping trades across multiple markets and multiple winners in each (Polymarket likes inflating their total numbers the same way stock exchanges do using "trading volume" numbers). But it's already high enough that an insider looking for quarterly $20k bonuses could be tempted.
This is likely the least damaging reason why the criminal enterprise of the state should be rolled back to a handful of functions. Thoughts from a grumpy old libertarian.
Just one more damned thing about which to worry! I'm just too old for this crazy world; I'm really starting to sound like my parents.
In what way are these opinions “highly valuable”?
And having an official adjudicator on…reality…sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
> In what way are these opinions “highly valuable”?
Well, these opinions are arguably a lot more accurate than a polling company's survey of the small subset of the population that answers their phones to non-friends *and* is willing to take the time to answer questions.
Do people really make these bets with firmly held or well researched opinions or would they be swayed by the odds on a given payout?
I'm not a gambler, but I strongly suspect that gamblers would never put their money down unless they were absolutely convinced that they'd win. After all, many of those bets cost a lot more than a lottery ticket.
I’m not a gambler either - that must be obvious!
While the opinions expressed as bets are valuable as survey tools, I wonder how they might aso be manipulated. And it looks like we will need an Adjudicator of Outcomes for an independent “official’ version of what actually happened in any event.
The outcomes problem could theoretically be solved by existing Polymarket mechanisms: new markets can carefully define what metrics will define outcomes. But that won't solve the larger systemic insider trading threat.