Natalie Kietroweth

And we've obviously seen that in sports betting, players colluding with bettors to change the outcome of games or of things that happen within the games.

In sports betting cases, those lead often to criminal charges.

But in this case, is this kind of cheating actually punished?

Wait, tell me how cheating is part of the high-mindedness.

But isn't there a case, David, for these companies that operate these markets to be worried about the business implications of cheating?

Like, wouldn't a Shane Copeland, for example—

be concerned that people wouldn't want to participate in polymarket if they know that they may be taking a sucker's bet on some of these big events where the person on the other side actually has good information and they're just making a guess?

Right.

You're not the sucker.

David, you made it clear that these platforms have persuaded regulators that what they're doing is not facilitating gambling.

They obviously call themselves prediction markets, not betting apps.

But the reality is the way they work, as you've described it, is much more like gambling than the stock market, right?

These are quick fix kind of bets.

Right.

If you have a gambling addiction, like you said, there's all these reasons why you're compelled to keep betting.

And if you're just someone who finds them fun, you're looking for entertainment.

You're looking for this kind of world that's been created by these markets, which as you've described it to me, kind of turns reality into something like a video game.

Yeah, I have to say it's pretty dark to imagine people putting money behind the notion, for example, that Gaza would be declared a famine or that the fires in L.A.

wouldn't be put out and then potentially having a rooting interest in that outcome.

Like just to put a fine point on it, it means presumably you have people hoping that these terrible things will happen because they'll make money on it.