chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
An argument I’ve heard for allowing this is, at least it means the public will have more reliable advance information, since insiders are incentivized to bet on what they know will happen in order to take everyone else’s money, which happens before that information gets into the news.
SL3wvmnas@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Well depends on the definition of public… When Peter Thiel invests heavily in a platform like polymarket all it does is tell him if his political power is showing. Everything else is breadcrumbs we are allowed to see…
Much like with similar markets, robinhood comes to mind, I suspect this is of similar cloth (hugely profitable to the insiders, sometimes profitable to the outsiders and the public ““findings”” get massaged by their marketing department.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I’m not sure what you mean, in this case the definition of public would be anyone who can see the state of the market (everyone), and so can see when insider trading visibly moves the price. The idea being that doing the insider trading unavoidably leaks the information in this way, they can’t hide it unless they can manage to actually prevent all insiders from trading on their inside knowledge.