Comment by Terr_
6 hours ago
> bettors are waging using their own property [...] To prohitbit such a thing is to violate their property rights
This is technically true but doesn't deserve top-billing. Any fraudster or embezzler (or mugger or drunk-driver) will incidentally be risking some of their own property while exercising their right to control it.
> informed decisions about an event by proof-of-stake
A large chunk of the problem here occurs when people (politicians, judges, police, CEOs, etc.) are wagering assets and outcomes that aren't actually theirs, but things they control in (violated) trust. In other words, the personal "stake" of their overt bet is actually far too small.
> The latter is functionally the same as policemen/judges/prosecutors/prisons having an incentive to create more criminals. [...] we increase punishments
So... repercussions like "is is a crime for those people to possess a private account on the anonymous bribery website"?
In regards to first point, I might not have made it clear, but betting, on its own, does not harm others, contrary to mugging or hitting a car. Property rights come with the associated duty of respecting others' properties afterall. Failure to do will result in the duty to repair and pay to restore the "correct" state to best of their abilities.
Onto the second, I don't think the people you mentioned actually wager stuff that they don't own. To be more precise, the problem is that they use criminal means to "rig" the bet in their favor. That, at least, seems to be what OP is talking about with incentives.
Finally, regarding the last, I agree that roles that require trust should have more norms and rules to enforce that trust. In case of strictly private roles, I personally believe they should be done via contracts and cultural pressures. For governmental roles, they should be enforce by laws (such as the one you suggested). Since this is a top-level, abstract, description, we can get into more about more specific cases (such as CEOs).