This market resolves to YES if there's a third assassination attempt on Former President Trump before Election Day.
In case the assassination attempt happens between Nov 4th and Nov 5th this will resolve based on the timezone where it happened.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ5,430 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,805 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1,256 | |
| 4 | Ṁ823 | |
| 5 | Ṁ501 |
People are also trading
Looks like this was a Trump supporter.
@JeffBerman Yeah. "But while the sheriff called the arrest a thwarted assassination attempt, the man told a reporter he is a Trump supporter who bought the guns for his own safety and notified police at a checkpoint that they were in the trunk of his car."
"Few details have been released about the arrest, but Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco later told the Southern California News Group that Miller was also in possession of fake VIP and press passes.
“We probably stopped another assassination attempt,” Bianco told the newspaper group."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-arrested-outside-trump-rally-with-illegal-firearms-sheriff-says
I'm keeping an eye on how similar questions resolve as more credible information comes out.
Even though we’re not using real money, there are some big moral questions around a market like this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market
@MikeWendling If you think someone would be incentivized to try to assassinate a US president by a low/zero liquidity prediction market with a total capitalization of $500, you should avoid placing a bet here. I find this market to be morally ambiguous in its current state but would find a similar market on Polymarket with a larger capitalization to be unambiguously amoral.
@becauseyoudo You’re probably right, but that does raise the question: at which point does a market like this become clearly amoral or wrong? I don’t have an answer in mind.
@MikeWendling Is a prediction market amoral if it predicts a rise in automobile fatalities or some other mortality metric which if observed by the right people might serve as a warning and actually reduce the likelihood and number of fatalities?
Is a prediction market amoral if it predicts a reduction in automobile fatalities and people assume a reduction will occur so no action is taken and fatalities actually go up?
I haven't seen the Trump campaign quantify the chance of another violent attack against the former President that might endanger the lives of supporters. Are they more morally culpable than anyone participating in a market that could serve as a warning to those supporters?
False reports of explosives found in a car near a Trump rally spread online https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-rally-false-bomb-threat-e3f8c44132602c97bb7c4acce2ec63b9
Added a clarification related to timezones.