Polymarket, where users can gamble on world events, has not paid users who bet on an invasion. The dispute started over a question posed to bettors on site: “Will the U.S. invade Venezuela by …” followed by a range of possible dates.
A description said the bet would pay out if “the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela,” adding that “the resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.”
But later that day, after the Trump administration’s assertions that it would control Venezuela’s policymaking and oil industry, Polymarket added a note to its site stating that the operation did not constitute an invasion.
“President Trump’s statement that they will ‘run’ Venezuela while referencing ongoing talks with the Venezuelan government does not alone qualify the snatch-and-extract mission to capture Maduro as an invasion,’’ the note said.
Polymarket declined to comment on its decision.
Polymarket is regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which did not respond to a request for comment. Roughly $20 billion was traded on the platform last year.
Bets are based on the likelihood of an event’s taking place. If it is deemed likely to happen, bets could be close to $1 and the potential payout small; if the outcome is seen as unlikely, bets could be just a few cents and have a much higher potential payout.
The odds on a U.S. invasion of Venezuela jumped after the incursion but have since plummeted, implying very little likelihood of a payout. People are still wagering on a future invasion: There is roughly $6.5 million betting it will occur through the end of January, and another $2 million betting on it through the end of March.
Comments from users on the webpage for the disputed Venezuela bet were angry at Polymarket’s decision.
“There is no mathematical possibility that the snatch-and-extract operation could succeed without invading any point on Venezuelan territory,” wrote one user. Another wrote: “Everyone is calling it invasion.”
by Joe Rennison, NY Times | Read more:
Image:Vincent Alban/The New York Times
[ed. This seems to me a big downside of prediction markets. Anyone with inside information, or worse, decision-making authority, could easily and anonymously make bets and profit. By now everyone's heard about the person who placed a 30K bet on this 'invasion' and 'won' $400K a few hours later. Hegseth or J.D. would be high on my list of suspects, but it could be anybody with close access. Fortunately, congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) is taking the issue seriously and proposing a ban affecting all government officials (will be interesting to see who does and doesn't support it). Also, just as an aside, why is everyone gambling these days?]
