Polymarket users who bet on a U.S. invasion of Venezuela are crying foul after the prediction market company declared that the Jan. 3 U.S. military operation did not constitute an invasion.
Polymarket, where users can gamble on world events, has not paid users who bet on an invasion. The dispute started over a question posed to bettors on site: “Will the U.S. invade Venezuela by …” followed by a range of possible dates.
A description said the bet would pay out if “the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela,” adding that “the resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.”
So when U.S. Special Forces flew into Venezuela on helicopters and snatched the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife in the early morning of Jan. 3, many Polymarket gamblers were ready to collect their winnings.
But later that day, after the Trump administration’s assertions that it would control Venezuela’s policymaking and oil industry, Polymarket added a note to its site stating that the operation did not constitute an invasion.
“President Trump’s statement that they will ‘run’ Venezuela while referencing ongoing talks with the Venezuelan government does not alone qualify the snatch-and-extract mission to capture Maduro as an invasion,’’ the note said.
Polymarket declined to comment on its decision.
Polymarket is regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which did not respond to a request for comment. Roughly $20 billion was traded on the platform last year.
Bets are based on the likelihood of an event taking place. If it is deemed likely to happen, then bets could be close to $1 and the potential payout small; if the outcome is seen as unlikely, then bets could be just a few cents and have a much higher potential payout.
The odds on a U.S. invasion of Venezuela jumped after the incursion but have since plummeted, implying very little likelihood of a payout. People are still wagering on a future invasion: There is roughly $6.5 million betting it will occur through the end of January, and another $2 million betting on it through the end of March.
Comments from users on the webpage for the disputed Venezuela bet were angry at Polymarket’s decision.
“There is no mathematical possibility that the snatch-and-extract operation could succeed without invading any point on Venezuelan territory,” wrote one user. Another wrote: “Everyone is calling it invasion.”
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary’s description of the transitive verb “invade” is “to enter a country, town, etc., using military force in order to take control of it.”
Miriam Webster Dictionary defines invade as “to enter for conquest or plunder.”
The administration has asserted its control of Venezuelan oil assets after Mr. Maduro’s capture, with President Trump saying that the United States would take between 30 and 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil to then sell on the open market.
“This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” Mr. Trump said in a Jan. 6 social media post.
After Mr. Maduro’s capture, bets on a possible U.S. invasion of Greenland have been around 9 cents, while bets on the United States acquiring part of the Danish territory before year’s end sit at 15 cents.
Joe Rennison writes about financial markets, a beat that ranges from chronicling the vagaries of the stock market to explaining the often-inscrutable trading decisions of Wall Street insiders.
The post A Fierce Debate With Polymarket: Did the U.S. ‘Invade’ Venezuela? appeared first on New York Times.
