It can obviously happen, and it's intrinsic. It's also quite probably tiny and insignificant in the case we're talking about, and not particularly unfair. The whole idea is that the price itself reflects the inside information. Someone even acting on it at all has effectively made it almost public information. At least it's somewhat public that something is going on that might affect the price. It makes for a fascinating study in group dynamic behaviour and information flows, played only by people who are up for it, and affecting nobody but them, for the most part. If there's a mad gambler out there that's been ruined by iPredict, I'd like to hear about it. Or at least some fucking evidence at all that something sinister is afoot with it.
I’d suggest that where possible, laws should offer certainty, not allow workarounds for mates.
If you can provide any evidence that such "workarounds" happened, do so. Perhaps a story of someone who tried to make a similar business/research project here, but was not allowed.
it strikes me that the FMA wouldn’t have been as helpful to a random bunch of kids with a startup or an overseas betting operation like IG Index.
Maybe not beforehand, but after another one existed, they'd have less of a leg to stand on.
I’m actually surprised that the universities ethics committee approved iPredict, given the scope for insider trading (such as an oil company employee making a few bucks by predicting petrol prices). And they’ve had seven years to gather data.
The incredibly tiny scope, where attempts to do any such thing would be extremely obvious to whoever is watching, something that all the other traders are financially incentivized to do.
I'm not surprised they approved it, it's an extremely interesting experiment.
In pretty much all real futures markets, insider trading is illegal for the above reasons.
You're talking at cross purposes here. When people say insider trading is the point of prediction markets, they're not saying they condone insider trading. They're saying that one of the best ways to deal with it, given how inevitable it is, is to allow a system in which the signal that someone is trading on the inside comes out immediately in the price - in short, the price contains all the information available to all traders, including the insider traders. This is its main strength, why it can be more accurate than models based on only the purest information and most ethical of motives.
Furthermore, the killing of it was not done out of any concerns about its ethics. It was because it could be used for money laundering, so the Associate Justice Minister claims.
There’s a reasonable argument for allowing small-stakes online gambling
Particularly when no small part of the purpose is for the information that it provides, because the bets aren't about which dice or card will come up, or which horse gets thrashed across the line first, but majorly important issues of the day.
That source has simply been switched off. Goodbye experiment, research possibilities, threads like this one.
one company gets an end-run round the law by being a university / mates with the National Party.
Was there someone else who tried to set something like this up? It was set up in 2008, when Labour was still in power.
I'm not the world's biggest fan of David Farrar, but he doesn't deserve to have his business killed for basically nothing. Especially since it represents something rather unique.
I mean seriously "three traders hold portfolios on the website worth in excess of $10,000". Dear God, the world is coming to an end! The gigantic sum of $30,000 could maybe (but most probably not) be used to launder all the dirty drug money of one small time cannabis grower. Or, alternatively, they could just walk into Sky City with ten times that amount and play blackjack, because that is something our government not only allows, it is willing to make big exemptions for.
That is quite fucked up. If there was evidence that money had actually been laundered through it, that might make a bit more sense. But to shut down a one-of-a-kind service like that because of a vague risk of money laundering is just ridiculous.
Or even writes that way.
Well, machine translations and lazy pro-forma text search and replaces without proofreading do. Which is what looks like happened here. It's so mechanical that they will make up a bullshit boilerplate excuse that they actually have a computer program doing it.
A right-wing govt knows its on the wrong side of the issue when Greg O’Connor and the Herald editorial oppose you.
Yes, a surprising turn. Not for the first time I would like to know who wrote a Herald editorial - but in this particular case their reasons for anonymity might actually be well-founded. It could be someone who has felt the information stranglehold and the commentary straitjacket personally.
Thank God it wasn't just me feeling that way.
As a regular user I am happy that it is not free for kids as there would just be more people there.
I'll think to myself next time I could take the kids to the pool but don't have the budget for it that at least my absence makes it a nicer experience for you. That will make it feel a lot better.