<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>And then we have the artificial pricing of Truth Social/Trump
Media... <br>
</p>
<p>I saw a headline claiming a 12% jump in prices today based on
?speculation? or aspirational ideation...<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/04/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/truth-social-00187158"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/04/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/truth-social-00187158</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't take this enthusiasm/appetite for DJT stock as an actual
indicator for his likely success in the election, just for the
headiness in his cult following.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/4/24 2:22 PM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f5bd7819-16b2-46e5-a185-de750201b541@gmail.com">Yeah,
one explanation for manipulating the market in Trump's favor is to
provide evidence for the coming election challenges/lawsuits. I've
heard some talking heads suggest that much of the polling is done
just to argue for a red wave. And those are purposefully biased
toward Trump to help with the challenges.
<br>
<br>
w.r.t. free markets: I agree. I don't think such a thing exists.
But there is some freedom in there. It's a bit like information, I
guess, where one might say that a random thing has more
information than an ordered thing. The justification for markets,
as I understand it, is to manage uncertainty. If you're completely
ignorant of some referent process, an *open* market helps
incorporate and reduce a bunch of [non]sense into something
actionable. So (hearkening back to Nick's question) if you feel
you must act prior to any rational result, a market is a way to
facilitate that. But if you think you have low uncertainty, a
preponderance of justified signals, the market for that should
lose its freedom.
<br>
<br>
But that argument implies that I would have to answer "yes" to my
1st question. The market would "have" more information than the
polls. And even though I'm using my own argument, here, I'm not
sure I believe that conclusion ... it feels more like the markets
have different information than the polls. I'm just too ignorant
to have an idea of what that information is for each.
<br>
<br>
Anyway, yeah, I hold some Ada for the same reason you do ... just
to keep me aware. It's the same reason I hold tiny bits of stock
in Evil organizations like Wells Fargo et al, not for the
investment, just to keep up. As fun as it is, reading
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.citationneeded.news/">https://www.citationneeded.news/</a> isn't adequate. But with the
Kalshi, I've made the prediction Harris will win exactly twice,
now, once to some Canadian lesbians we met at a pub in Glasgow and
once to a lefty friend who is *really* distraught. I wanted to be
sure I couldn't post hoc edit my memory later. What better way
than to bet actual money?
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/4/24 12:45, steve smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think both polls and "markets" have a
lot of self-selection bias... what motivates folks to answer a
poll and what motivates them to "buy in"? Supposedly pollsters
*can* try to wash that bias out, but their "washing method"
seems likely biased as well.
<br>
<br>
I am inclined to believe in the dynamics of "free markets" on
principle, but in this case, the self-selection bias likely
overwhelms the "efficient market hypothesis" aspect?
<br>
<br>
Why would "wealthy bastards" want to manipulate these markets
with high buy-ins? Firstly, wealth is exponentially
distributed so no matter how much I influence a market with my
"vote", someone else can overwhelm it with their own. If the
true meaning of a market is truly speculative based on likely
returns from the market, there are dynamics around manipulation,
but if the real goal is to influence opinion and confident, I
can see why "wealthy bastards" might want to contribute to the
illusion of a Trump Supremacy/Ascendency, most especially if it
only involves spending one drop of sweat off of their suntanned
scrotal pudenda.
<br>
<br>
Mixing the two, in a no limit stakes market, why not run Trumps
bias up with you spare change, then place more significant bets
"against yourself" late in the game, either evening out the
stakes/rewards to gain advantage or to break even up to whatever
influence their offerings generated?
<br>
<br>
As an aside, I'm not sure what a *true* free market looks like
and given the range of human motivations and desires, I'm not
sure we want to let he raw id (or worse, amplified by
mob-entrained dynamics?) run free. I'd claim sub-?sapient?
(think Swarm dynamics) life runs on whatever the equivalent of
the collective coupling of ids might be in
non-human/non-sapients? Once we started "self-regulating" at a
higher level than personal id/collective id we started a habit
that while perhaps highly adaptive, one we can't backslide on
too well without being at huge risk? We are addicted to
"governance" for better or worse, and I'm hopeful that we might
be able to make a phase transition from Churchill's "worst form
of government except for all the others we have tried" (i.e.
Democracy of some stripe?) to something more better (not sure
what the fitness function "more better" actually describes
though).
<br>
<br>
I find these markets vaguely interesting (moreso when they were
new ?20+ years ago)... and I'm glad to see you (Glen) putting
some skin in the game, I do think that shifts my perspective
when I do so. I bought into Blockchain through Cardano/Ada
because I like the aspirations of the project beyond/outside-of
CryptoSpeculation... and my (small) stake helps me be reminded
to follow it's evolution even when it feels a little boring. I
can imagine doing the same with the voting markets... but they
vary enough I don't know which to buy into. The Trump-leaning
ones seem like a fools-game to me (for Tump Fools), but I would
have bet on Hillary 8 years ago (even if I didn't vote for
her). The one clearly unknown factor in Trump's favor is that
he is hugely more likely to arrange to get inaugurated without
winning either the popular or the electoral college vote... is
the variance from 50/50 in the markets perhaps reflecting that?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Both Kalshi
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://kalshi.com/markets/pres/presidential-elections"><https://kalshi.com/markets/pres/presidential-elections></a>
and PolyMarket <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://polymarket.com/elections"><https://polymarket.com/elections></a> skew
heavily for Trump. I'm like ... 51% confident that Harris will
win (barring legal shenanigans). I figured I'd go ahead and
participate. So I bought $50 worth of Harris "yes". And I've
heard that there may be some rich people manipulating the
market. It's not clear to me why they'd do that. But like Musk
buying Twitter, it's clear that "disposable" income takes on a
deeper meaning when you've got so much of it. But barring
market manipulation: a) do y'all think the markets have more
"information", whatever that means, than the polls? And b) are
y'all participating in any of these markets?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>