Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Financial markets experts are raising concerns about possible insider trading after an unusual spike in oil futures trading only minutes before President Trump announced talks with Iran on Truth Social on Monday. "It seems highly suspicious when you see a surge in volume on no news,” CBS News business...

180,044 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Debunking Coffeezilla’s prediction market claims In his recent video “prediction markets aren’t just gambling,” Coffeezilla made the three untrue or misleading claims below: 1) “The only way you get the news early, by the way, is if it’s insider trading.” 2) “All these prediction markets are doing is aggregating sentiment on the news.” 3) “The only way you can get something not in the news from these markets is if someone with non-news information trades, which is AKA inside information.” I want to start by saying that I’ve really enjoyed Coffeezilla’s content in the past, and I appreciate him blacking out my name in the tweet he screenshared. I also watched the full video and agreed with parts of it (and disagreed with other parts). That said, these three claims are egregiously incorrect, and I want to correct the record. I hope Coffeezilla reads this and reconsiders these points 1) “The only way you get the news early, by the way, is if it’s insider trading.” Merriam-Webster defines insider trading as “the illegal use of information available only to insiders in order to make a profit in financial trading.” This claim is wrong because it is clearly possible to get information early in entirely legal ways. For example, in CPI inflation markets, someone might notice prices rising on goods they regularly buy, or a sophisticated trader might aggregate pricing data across many products and form a forecast before the CPI release. Journalists may later report on inflation, but the information existed beforehand. Markets also react faster to sudden events, like a Trump Truth Social post or an earthquake, than journalists do. Traders are financially incentivized to react in seconds; journalists are not. Recent high-profile examples include Nobel Peace Prize, Spotify, and Time POTY markets, where traders had information before the news broke. In the Nobel case, there was disinformation claiming insider trading, but as far as most observers can tell, the information was obtained legally via web-scraping. Even if the Nobel Committee disliked it, legally obtained information is fair game. 2) “All these prediction markets are doing is aggregating sentiment on the news.” This is easy to debunk. Prediction markets do aggregate information, but not merely sentiment or headlines. That’s likely why CNN and CNBC partnered with Kalshi. News is filtered through editors, incentives, and bias. Taking headlines at face value is not a winning trading strategy. Savvy traders treat news as one input among many variables. If a headline says “Poll X shows Clinton up 10 points,” markets may adjust, but they don’t blindly price the headline. They factor in other variables. I’d argue markets are often smarter than the news. Domer❤️‍🔥 has even argued that Fed markets on Kalshi are more accurate than CME due to traders like himself making them more efficient, and I think he’s right. 3) “The only way you can get something not in the news from these markets is if someone with non-news information trades, which is AKA inside information.” Merriam-Webster defines insider information as “information not known to the public that one has obtained by virtue of being an insider.” You can obtain non-news information without being an insider. This overlaps with point one, but here’s a concrete example. For the recent TN-07 special election, I traveled to TN-07 and spoke with voters leaving early-voting sites and with everyday residents. I learned how little awareness there was that a special election was even happening, and how voters were thinking about the race. That information wasn’t in the news, but it informed how I traded. I’m not an insider. This was “alpha hunting” through firsthand observation. Almost every serious prediction market trader has similar stories. This is certainly not "insider trading." I’m genuinely curious to hear your thoughts, Coffeezilla, and hope for a good-faith dialogue. I hope you are doing well!

Benjamin Freeman

80,021 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

GB News, which is not a news channel according to Ofcom, repeatedly egging on President Trump to sue the BBC - and the culture secretary Lisa Nandy does nothing because she's too busy telling lies in parliament about police advice over Maccabi - GB News, "The BBC and the defamation case. How did you feel when you first heard about it?" President Trump, "They wrote me a letter of apology" "If it's unintentional, you don't apologise, right?" "Just before this interview I hear they did it again on another program" GB News, "On Newsnight" President Trump, "I just settled with 60 minutes CBS.. But that's not as bad as what the BBC did" "One of the BBC"s competitors reported it, how they found out about it, you've got to give them credit" GB News, "And if it wasn't for The Daily Telegraph shining a light on the story" President Trump, "I assume they are enemies, they are now" GB News, "Well, they are part of the establishment media in the UK.. They were angry on your behalf" "How easy was it to pursue legal again?" President Trump, "I don't even know what percent is owned by your government" GB News, "It's funded by the British taxpayer" President Trump, "British tax payer has been a big problem with it" GB News, "The director general resigned, the head of news resigned. How far are you prepared to push it?" President Trump, "This is beyond fake, this is corrupt what they did" GB News, "As someone who understands TV, if you worked on a show where they edited something together like that" President Trump, "Who would do this?" "You worry about AI because things like this happen, but you can't imagine the BBC did this, somewhat crudely" "I couldn't believe it actually" GB News, "How far will you push it because they haven't offered you a penny in compensation" President Trump, "I think I have an obligation to do it. If you don't do it you don't stop it" "I wonder if they've done it to other people"

Farrukh

33,210 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

CBS's Jericka Duncan took a deep breath before reading copy on the Alfonsi kerfuffle for the Evening News, that closed with: "We determined it needed additional reporting." JERICKA DUNCAN: Well, now to a story about CBS News. A few hours before last night's edition of 60 Minutes, viewers learned that a segment that had been promoted would not air. It's about a notorious prison in El Salvador. And the Trump administration's decision to send Venezuelans and others there who it says entered the U.S. illegally. The correspondent, 60 Minutes veteran Sharyn Alfonsi, sent an email to CBS News colleagues saying the story is factually correct, and accusing CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss of pulling it for political reasons. Alfonsi says that despite requests for interviews, no one in the Trump administration would participate in the story. In an email, she wrote that, quote: "If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a kill switch." In a statement, Weiss says in part, quote: "Holding stories that aren't ready for whatever reason, that they lacked sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices, happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it's ready." And CBS News released a statement saying the 60 Minutes report on “Inside CECOT” will air in a future broadcast. We determined it needed additional reporting.

Jorge Bonilla

408,678 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce