Yeah. You aren't allowed to set up a life insurance policy on someone else's life, or a fire insurance policy on someone else's home. For obvious reasons. But buying an event contract that pays if someone dies or someone's house burns down is fine?
Yeah. You aren't allowed to set up a life insurance policy on someone else's life, or a fire insurance policy on someone else's home. For obvious reasons. But buying an event contract that pays if someone dies or someone's house burns down is fine?
being pedantic here but
> You aren't allowed to set up a life insurance policy on someone else's life, or a fire insurance policy on someone else's home
This isn't really true. Lots of people take out life insurance on others as a hedge for many reasons, small business partner is one. Same fire insurance, we had a case where someone pledged a building as collateral and we took out separate fire insurance on the building so we'd get paid out immediately.
I'm not sure where this false premise started but alot of people believe it.
The technical term is that you must have an “insurable interest” in what you insure. Both of your examples are people protecting their insurable interest. Ownership is the most common insurable interest, but there are many other ways to have one.
This is done because the insurance company wants you to prefer that the covered event doesn’t happen, which avoids some conflicts of interest.
These prediction market events don’t have the usual insurance interests involved.
Even if you have an insurable interest, moral hazard may arise - acting recklessly or other abuse, while knowing you are insured/covered. Somewhat similar to friendly fraud in retail/ecommerce.
> The technical term is that you must have an “insurable interest” in what you insure.
Yep, we're in full agreement here
Unless you short the property. Essentially, sell it now on the bet that it will drop in value later. Then it burns down and you repurchase the vacant lot and return the property to the original owner.
Evil, but most everything in real estate is evil.
And that's exactly the problem with Polymarket and such, it gives an incentive to be destructive because that's easy. Entropy is easy.
With an insurance this trick won't work, because the insurance company will notice what you are doing. Polymarket doesn't care.
> With an insurance this trick won't work, because the insurance company will notice what you are doing
This has worked well millions of times (and occasionally failed too with people ending in prison or with huge fines). Where I can agree however is that Polymarket makes that much easier.
To perhaps be a bit more pendantic.
You're not allowed to take out life insurance on someone you don't know or have a relationship (business or otherwise) with.
Life insurance on a business partner works. Life insurance on your spouse as well.
Life insurance on the leader of a random country? Unlikely
Yeah, you are being pedantic. The clear meaning is that you're not just allowed to insure arbitrary properties.
If you wanted to correct a misconception, you should provide a better, more complete understanding, not just express frustration about a misconception that doesn't even exist outside of an uncharitable reading.
In this case, that means refining the point to the more accurate model, that you need an insurable interest -- i.e. reason you don't want the event to happen, even knowing you'd get a payout[1]. Your counterexamples only work as such because that exists! If you want to fix all the people who don't have your superior understanding, that would have been a great way to help them out.
>I'm not sure where this false premise started but alot of people believe it.
It exists because it's approximately true: you can't get insurance on 99.99999% of buildings in the world because you have no insurable interest in them. And any time someone could correct that false premise, they probably just complain rather than providing the complete understanding -- exactly the choice you just made here.
[1] IMO, this is the natural dividing line between gambling and insurance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13916088
No no I appreciate the pedantry, thank you for the correction
> I'm not sure where this false premise started but alot of people believe it.
It being the driving plot behind Double Indemnity probably started it. I always thought it was true until your comment, too.
Some of the prediction markets explicitly forbid payouts based on death. E.g., Kalshi refused to pay out "leaves office" when Khamenei was killed.
There are a lot of things short of death that we don't want to encourage either. There is a huge grey zone here that I frankly don't want to entrust to private entities.
Sure, I'm not a fan of prediction markets in general either. Just responding to GP's specific claim about death incentives.
Well, you are privately allowed to bet on whatever you like with another individual. That is indeed legally fine, though potentially distasteful.
Polymarket is facilitating bets between people, not bets with the house. Gambling and insurance are both bets with the house.
> Well, you are privately allowed to bet on whatever you like with another individual.
What jurisdiction are we painting with that broad brush? This is far from universally true, even in the US.
Nope. "We're just an intermediary between people" is a 100+ year old yarn that casinos and bookies have been trying to spin. If you're presenting a point of entry to a betting line and taking a cut, congrats, you're the house. Doesn't matter if you adjust the betting line manually based on intuition or algorithmically based on betting volume. Sometimes it doesn't get enforced because of corruption, but if this was the case, then why aren't there tons of independent unregulated poker casinos where players just play against each other? If you facilitate and take a cut, you're the house.
Polymarket doesn't take a cut. Their profit comes in transaction fees.
The mob boss doesn't charge me interest on my loan - he just really likes receiving expensive gifts from me.
"We don't take a cut of your bet, we just charge you a transaction fee on your bet" is reaching a bit.
To me this is technicality.
A bet is a bet, whether it's against the house or other people it's a bet.
Can you name the individuals you are betting with on Polymarket? Can they name you?
That "facilitating" argument didn't work out for Silk Road.
Because what the Silk Road did was illegal whether in person or not.
What the hell are you talking about? You are absolutely not allowed to bet on whatever you'd like with another individual. Depending on what you're betting on (for example, the price of a stock or the throw of a card), it falls under varying different regimes. This is highly regulated and has been for most of the whole of human history.
Yes, there are de minimis exceptions. Your office NCAA pool, for example, is often legal, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about and is also irrelevant to a business facilitating it via 18 U.S.C. § 1955.
In Spain in elderly caring homes there was a tradition to bet on Bingo matches for simbolic prices (barely one or two euros, enough for a coffee and that's it). It was legalized on paper recently, but technically everyone turned a blind eye.
https://russpain.com/en/news-3/authorities-consider-legalizi...
>Rarely exceed 25 euros.
Maybe in Christmas, because the weekly play was just about low prizes.
Remember how things ended up when insurance policies on loans you didn't hold were allowed... I think there is quite a lot of good reasons to ban those sort of bets.
I've seen contracts on whether California will burn this summer.
Any bum defending these contracts is to me either a shill or way too dumb to understand the concept of incentives.
Oh and there was an Israeli journalist that got life threats because he reported that an Iranian missile struck some place in Israel, and apparently there was a huge bet on it on polymarket.
> But buying an event contract that pays if someone dies or someone's house burns down is fine?
You can sell your life insurance policy to somebody else. It's a way of getting money to sick people to use while thy are still alive.
Murder and arson are illegal. Just because there is an event contract that doesn't make them legal to do.
It's also illegal to pay someone to do murder or arson, which is easy to obfuscate as an "event contract".