I don't think it is AI. Instagram had a similar issue before. Maybe it still exists. If you ever logged in on a phone you could then use that phone to reset the password.
I believe Polymarket wants it to fall under the regulations of cftc as it is implemented like an option/event contract. And cftc says that they don't care about which technology is used. But as far as I now this is the first case it will be tested for real and the views of cftc and a judge may not be the same. I fail to see how it can be classified as insider trading. But, it is till fraud so I'm not sure how much it matters in the end.
How is it fraud? Wouldnt it just be a tos violation?
In my view, anyone participating in these markets does so knowing that the outcomes are within the control of other participants. I can't think of any other reason individual account activity is public.
US have wire fraud laws which I believe includes this. But it will be an interesting case to follow. Personally I don't see anything that should be a crime here at all.
Polymarket US is only able to operate in the USA because it is being regulated by the CFTC as a securities market. Otherwise, they would have been seen as a gambling site and would have been banned virtually everywhere.
The CEO of Coinbase finished an earnings call by reading all the buzzwords you could bet on to be mention during the call. So a CEO can manipulate these things and who knows if it was just a marketing thing or if he shared his plans.
Him placing the bets or a co-conspirator placing the bets and sharing the profit is the same thing. He is effectively betting on himself saying those words which he then goes on to say.
I'm pretty sure this is the same as match or race fixing to get the payout from bets made.
> Him placing the bets or a co-conspirator placing the bets and sharing the profit is the same thing.
So we're in agreement that if he is not profiting from saying it, then it's OK, correct?
> I'm pretty sure this is the same as match or race fixing to get the payout from bets made.
If my friends make a bet that I will/won't do something, and I choose to make one side win, that is not match fixing. I'm sure match fixing only applies to regulated games. If people want to make bets on unregulated games, and lose their shirt, they have only themselves to blame.
For something to be match fixing, the government has to recognize the activity as a sport, and most state laws require the person to benefit from the fixing, which the CEO here is not and/or they require "rule tampering" - there was no rule broken here.
Depends how you count profiting from it, if you only count direct monetary profit, or if you count things such as favours to be profit.
There has to be some motivation for people to do such random things, and even if not directly illegal, they do smell rather fishy and unethical.
T hen again crypto isn't known for its bastion of legality and morality, therefore I would assume there are some deals going on in the background which are probably illegal, and if not that then unethical - not that they would care about that.
> or if you count things such as favours to be profit.
There needs to be evidence of such a thing, no?
> There has to be some motivation for people to do such random things, and even if not directly illegal, they do smell rather fishy and unethical.
I have motivation. If people are placing stupid bets on me, I sure as heck want them to suffer for it.
I'm sure some people view a CEO doing this as unethical, but I fully support it. Whoever lost money on that bet had it coming.
Of course, my preference is both sides losing money, but we can't have everything.
Speaking of ethics: There is a reason why betting and gambling are categorized under "vices". If you make any bet on things out of your control, the questionable ethics begins with you. Don't put it on a third party who was not involved in crafting the bet.
I believe in some jurisdictions, private bets are not legally enforceable (i.e. if I make a bet with you and lose, it is my legal right to refuse to pay). There's a good reason for that!
Historically similar services have also been used to try to manipulate the real world by using bets for creating opinions. Like if you get to vote between candidate x and y and x leads by 75% to 25% on Polymarket maybe you don't vote for y even if the real numbers may be way closer.
Anybody who actually moved a set of services from Go to Rust? I've heard that in practice Rust uses more memory than Go for web services. When I ask LLMs I get the same answer as in the article. A 30-50% reduction but then also claims on how much memory Go uses. Which is about 5-10x more than our average service use.
So, what was the reason for the account suspension. Why did it happen? I know Google can be a bit stupid with their automatons but I am bit skeptical here. There are sites more critical than Railway hosted on GCP.
reply