Polymarket Refuses To Pay Bets That US Would 'Invade' Venezuela (ft.com)
- Reference: 0180533097
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/01/07/1438220/polymarket-refuses-to-pay-bets-that-us-would-invade-venezuela
- Source link: https://www.ft.com/content/985ae542-1ab4-491e-8e6e-b30f6a3ab666
> The decision by the prediction market has angered gamblers and added to the controversy surrounding a successful wager on the timing of Maduro's capture that netted more than $400,000 in winnings for a mystery trader.
>
> The dispute over the definition of "invade" highlights just one of the controversies faced by the mostly unregulated industry. Polymarket -- which only recently gained regulatory approval to operate legally in the US -- says on its website that it will resolve the "Will the US invade Venezuela by ... ?" contract if the US "commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela" by one of three dates. "The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources," it adds. Prediction platforms such as Polymarket do not typically make directional wagers in their own markets. Rather, they act as an intermediary matching long and short positions and adjudicating the outcome of events, collecting a fee in the process.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/985ae542-1ab4-491e-8e6e-b30f6a3ab666
definitions (Score:4, Interesting)
I am seeing the definition of invasion being to occupy or subjugate and Cheeto Benito says we're going to run Venezuela, so the latter absolutely applies.
In the best case this is a ploy to unmask the anonymous bettor, who they believe had inside information. In order to get paid they will have to sue, and then their identity will be revealed. If the other bets don't amount to a hill of beans compared to that 400k, it's a good plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump: "I'm going to run Venezuela just like a ran my casinos!" The entire world: Groans in unison.
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump: "I'm going to run Venezuela just like a ran my casinos!" The entire world: Groans in unison.
You mean loot them without accountability and leave them ruined and bankrupt? There was this phrase, something like might makes but I can’t remember the last part.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Trump: "I'm going to run Venezuela just like a ran my casinos!" The entire world: Groans in unison.
> You mean loot them without accountability and leave them ruined and bankrupt? There was this phrase, something like might makes but I can’t remember the last part.
Pretty much it seems. At least bush and that had the decency to pretend it wasn't about the oil. Trump said the quiet part out loud on purpose because he thinks it makes him cool.
Re:definitions (Score:4, Interesting)
23 years old but relevant again: [1]No Blood For Oil vs. Exactly How Much Oil Are We Talking About? [theonion.com]
[1] https://theonion.com/no-blood-for-oil-vs-exactly-how-much-oil-are-we-talkin-1819594284/
Re: (Score:2)
> The entire world: Groans in unison.
And just sits by and lets it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
hey, money talks! no one wants to lose the american market access... or be a target for Trump ego... all will fade away after Trump lose next elections anyway
Also, central/south america is USA playground, just as old URSS countries are Russia playground. Ukraine would never happened if Europe and USA didn't see Russia as fragile and weak... but they were not that weak after all (and also not as strong as they imagine themselves too)
With Russia busy, Europe economically dependent of the USA, we have China...
Re: (Score:2)
Refusing to to unload American flagged ships at your ports would be one way countries to react. Cancellation of business licenses of American-owed corporations is another. I think ultimately countries would have to act in concert to avoid retaliation. If Yemen does it, that's not going to be effective. If Belgium or Australia does it, then there is potentially a peaceful resolution. Even a week long boycott on trade with the US would disrupt supply chains enough to make some important people sweat.
> With Russia busy, Europe economically dependent of the USA, we have China
Russia is
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest to Denmark to proactively tell the US to GFO of Greenland. US currently has a base there. Otherwise cheeto might use the base as a point of attack to take over Greenland. At this point with cheeto, I think it best to assume he will do the unimaginable thing he said he would. Take appropriate counter actions immediately.
Re:definitions (Score:4, Interesting)
He can say so all he wants, but at the moment Venezuela is under control of the existing government, under the vice president. There are no US troops in the country. What we have seen in Venezuela is, for lack of a better word, a special military operation, with the intent to extract Maduro, not to occupy or subjugate the country by military force.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheeto said the quiet part out loud and Rubio has to backtrack [1]https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/... [cnbc.com] Plus he told the oil companies about the kidnapping ahead of time. [2]https://thehill.com/homenews/a... [thehill.com]
Cheeto does exactly as he says. You just haven't been paying attention.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/01/04/rubio-explains-how-us-might-run-venezuela-after-maduros-ouster-.html
[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5672735-trump-venezuela-oil-industry/
Re: (Score:2)
The point is: it is not an invasion until they actually invade.
Re: (Score:3)
Is your definition on sending armed military into a sovereign nation to kidnap a person different than mine?
Re: (Score:3)
> Cheeto does exactly as he says. You just haven't been paying attention.
During Trump's first term, someone (a journalist?) remarked that we should not pay attention to what Trump says but rather to what he does.
Even so, what he says is often a hell of a hint. So perhaps yes, pay attention to it.
And then what? As another journalist said during his first term, his detractors take him literally but not seriously, and his supporters take him seriously but not literally.
All of this can leave us distracted and/or confused -- and that's on-brand for Trump. So, we're back to paying att
Int'l Law Says it's an Invasion (Score:5, Insightful)
According to International law, crossing the border of a sovereign nation with a military force and conducting an operation constitutes an invasion.
Re: (Score:1)
Seems about right. Polymarket is pretending that the bet was for "occupation"
Re: (Score:1)
No, that's simply wrong.
"According to international law!" says random anonymous fucktard on the internet- +1 +1 +1 +1 say all of the people with Trump anxiety.
A few Delta Force guys is no more an invasion than the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a French invasion of New Zealand.
The word has a gray area, and nothing you do can make that go away. Making stupid shit like this up isn't helpful.
Time for legally mandated clarity (Score:5, Insightful)
The government should clearly define what this is. Polymarket should fall inline with Travel Insurance policies. Either this was an invasion (act of war) or it wasn't. You can't pick and choose in order to pocket the cash.
Travel insurance companies are saying this was an act of war.
The Orange Moron in Chief is saying the USA runs the country after a military action if that isn't an invasion I don't know what is. The us took military action and now has control.
Re: (Score:2)
> The government should clearly define what this is. Polymarket should fall inline with Travel Insurance policies. Either this was an invasion (act of war) or it wasn't. You can't pick and choose in order to pocket the cash.
Sure you can. You pick what minimizes your liability.
> Travel insurance companies are saying this was an act of war.
That means they don't pay out.
> The Orange Moron in Chief is saying the USA runs the country after a military action if that isn't an invasion I don't know what is. The us took military action and now has control.
Personally, embargoing shipping establishes control over territorial waters, which meets the definition of what was needed to pay out.
Re:Time for legally mandated clarity (Score:4, Interesting)
> Travel insurance companies are saying this was an act of war.
A blockade is an "act of war". Or a missile attack. A major act of sabotage, a cyberattack. Insurance policies have definitions to refer to.
Invasion is bit vague. In common English, an invasion can mean something larger, intending to take territory, as Polymarket says. Its not a word I'd have used for what happened.
But in formal legal and military language an invasion is "the unconsented entry of one state's armed forces into the territory of another."
So unless they defined it otherwise, it *was* an invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
In what formal legal and military language?
I went through some UN resolutions, and they don't seem to use the word in that way. Rather, they seem to call that an "Act of Aggression", and Invasion doesn't seem to be defined, but seems to imply "more".
The definition of "The unconsented entry of one state's armed forces into the territory of another..." means the number of invasions of the 20th century has just increased overwhelmingly. Hell, France invaded New Zealand.
That word is just too damn ambiguou
Re: (Score:2)
what control? i don't see anything
Re: (Score:3)
> The government should clearly define what this is.
One of the things that makes these such Interesting Times is that while your statement would normally make perfect sense, these days the government has a financial conflict of interest in this situation, so I think they should be completely disqualified from defining anything!
Trump is doing this for the purpose of personally profiting from it, and might possibly might even be one of the bettors. He (and everyone who works for him, since they necessarily lack
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, had not thought of that. Absolutely it could be trump that made the wager. It would fit him perfectly. I suppose he could complain to cpfb, but oh wait, he has defunded it.
well they definately invaded (Score:3)
just forgot they were supposed to successfully hold the ground
I predict ... (Score:1)
... bettors will object to this decision.
U.S. has not invaded Venezuela... (Score:2)
At least not yet. There was a military action, sure. No different than all of the Presidents in the last 20+ years have done in places like Syria, Yemen, etc. It's military action, not an occupying force. Just because the U.S. is telling the current Venezuelan government what to do ("run Venezuela",) does not mean we have invaded.
I know some people don't like to distinguish this because it's inconvenient for some people's narrative, but there is no objective way one can considers this action an invasion
Re: (Score:2)
per dictionary:
invasion: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force
Re: (Score:2)
invasion: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force
That's rather circular.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bad dictionary, or you're a liar, or incompetent.
invasion (n):
1. an act of invading, especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
invade (v):
1. to enter for conquest or plunder
Make sure to resolve those circular references, chief.
what are the odds... (Score:1)
that the mystery trader is donald trump :)
"special military operation" (Score:2)
invasion: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force
As USA's putin-in-charge puts it, "special military operation" was biggly successful but all bets are off about what next.
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition is a bit circular.
Invasion - what someone does when they invade
Let's look up what it means to invade.
Invade - (of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it. "it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you feel dirty trying to arrange facts to fit your narrative?
Like not even a little bit?
Don't you realize that's the same kind of fucking Truthiness bullshit that MAGA drowns us in?
Have some fucking shame, dude.
invasion (n):
1. an act of invading, especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
invade (v):
1. to enter for conquest or plunder
Military operations that are limited in scope are not referred to as invasions by intellectually honest people.
Stop being a piece of shit. Do b
Some way.... (Score:2)
If only we had some sort of system to resolve disputes like this. Something that was structured where the exact definition of terms matter and is empowered with authority to adjudicate these type of disputes.
What have Trump or others said? (Score:2)
Has Trump said they invaded Venezuela? Or any of his cabinet? Has the term been used?
Here's my question in all this - why is Venezuela doing anything he asks? How has he 'gained control' of the country, and as he says, is going to 'run it for a while'?
Sure, he kidnapped their leader, but the rest of their country remains untouched.
What happens if they say no to Trump? The US kidnaps the next in charge as well?
How long will this be tolerated by the rest of the world?
If someone kidnapped Trump, does that mean
Raid not invade (Score:2)
The key difference between a military invasion and a raid is the intent regarding territory: an invasion aims to capture and hold ground, while a raid involves entering enemy territory for a specific purpose and then quickly withdrawing.
The US raided Venezuela for the purpose of capturing Maduro. We did not invade Venezuela with the intent of making it the 53rd state (after Canada and Greenland).
Re: (Score:2)
Number could be wrong on the states. Columbia and Panama are candidates as well.
'prediction markets' (Score:3, Insightful)
This is betting. You are foolish if you bet on something where the outcome cannot be definitively and objectively classified in some way. You are also foolish to offer bets on such things.
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case Trump clearly stated that the US was going to take control over Venezuela for the time being. That would, in my book, be an invasion with the intent to install a new government, or put differently governer.
Re:'prediction markets' (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point is you can argue over the definition, so if there's an argument to be had, what do you expect when betting on it? One can't argue about a number, but we can sure argue over what is the definition of the word "invasion". Yet another reason why prediction markets are bound for shit like this. I cannot imagine why somebody would choose to bet over something in which the book holder gets to decide what constitutes a successful prediction (I mean, other than being a compulsive gambler, of course .. just another industry taking advantage of people who have problems to exploit)
Re:'prediction markets' (Score:5, Insightful)
Also for these open ended predictions, 'insider knowledge' is supremely likely to get gamed...
If you have orders to get ready to strike a country, well then you can turn that knowledge around pretty easily...
It's hard enough to contend with insider knowledge in more regulated contexts, it's just utterly impossible in these sorts of offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
right now the control is still in the same people, it just changed the president...
Even if the USA manage to change the government, without troops in the ground to control it, that also do not match a invasion, that is just pressure to a peaceful government change (or a civil war if it is not that peaceful)
so i'm on the Polymarket "side" (not that i support betting, i actually think it is the most dump thing to do and everyone that bets deserve to lose their money always)
Re: (Score:2)
> Even if the USA manage to change the government, without troops in the ground to control it, that also do not match a invasion,
There were troops on the ground. They just left already. Presumably what Polymarket intended the word "invade" to mean is "occupy", i.e. invade the country and then continue to keep troops there long-term to stabilize the country. However, as a general matter of law, the word "invade" does not require occupation, but rather occurs when you have two factors: entry and enmity.
Entry: The presence of foreign troops on another country's soil. Clearly, U.S. troops were on Venezuelan soil, because they captur