Polymarket is doubling down on its controversial decision to let users bet on military strikes. The crypto prediction market faces mounting criticism after the US launched attacks on Iran, turning what was speculation into deadly reality for some users who wagered on the timing of conflict. In a defiant statement, the platform defended its war betting markets as an "invaluable" news source while taking shots at traditional media and X, adding fuel to an already heated debate about the ethics of profiting from geopolitical violence.
Polymarket just made its most controversial bet yet - defending the right to wager on war. The crypto-based prediction market is pushing back hard against criticism after hosting markets where users bet on when the US would strike Iran next. Now that those strikes have actually happened and people have died, the platform's facing serious heat.
In a statement that reads more like a manifesto than damage control, Polymarket called its war betting markets "invaluable" before pivoting to attack traditional media outlets and Elon Musk's X. The platform's tone-deaf defense comes at a moment when users literally cashed out on correctly predicting military action that resulted in casualties.
This isn't Polymarket's first rodeo with controversy. The platform has been under scrutiny for suspected insider trading on seemingly innocuous events. Someone suspiciously nailed their bets on the Super Bowl halftime show, raising eyebrows about whether performers or their teams might have leaked information. Then there was the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro capture situation, where someone made a killing betting on geopolitical events with potentially life-or-death stakes.
But betting on war escalates things to an entirely different level. The US strikes on Iran market allowed users to speculate on the precise timing of military action. For winners, the result meant profit. For people on the ground in conflict zones, it meant something far more serious. The optics are, to put it mildly, terrible.
