Giving people an easy way to profit (i.e. incentive) to use either direct political power or indirect power via bribes is going to have massive consequences on corruption.

We've made profiting off of corruption substantially easier. Anyone who thinks that isn't going to increase corruption is a moron.

Anyone who thinks having more corruption is a good thing is also a moron.

I feel like there is two ways to frame this.

The first people betting on the outcome they want vs outcome they think will happen.

I think the second obviously make sense. If you had two experts arguing over how a war would go and they where willing to make a bet on it that is good because they are putting “their money where their mouth is” or have “skin in the game”. That’s a good thing.

The first implies manipulation or just a moralistic problem.

The issue I guess is it’s not possible to have one without the other. But I would guess most people are betting because of the second reason and not the first.

Could you explain what do you mean? What's the plan and execution here? Planning and executing invasion? If so, there are much better markets than polymarket for making such bets.

Now, can you find enough liquidity in the market to turn a profit? Can you find it before it becomes aparent something is off in the bet?

honestly the profits aren't big enough when you can just go into business if you have that kind of influence