Betting on the Apocalypse: Can We Put a Price Tag on Tragedy?

Prediction Markets Capture Public Attention

A controversial nuclear explosion bet thrust prediction markets into the global spotlight earlier this year. The wager appeared on Polymarket, an online platform where users bet on the outcomes of real-world events. The site offers a vast range of topics—from elections and economic data to armed conflicts and the weather. Instead of buying corporate shares, investors purchase “shares” in a specific scenario, such as “YES, Jesus Christ will return by 2027” or “NO, Trump will not win the election.”

How Do Prediction Markets Work?

Every wager centers on a specific question, and users buy “YES” or “NO” contracts. The price reflects the market’s perceived probability. If the event occurs, the investor wins; if not, they lose their stake. Along the way, traders can resell their contracts if the price rises. The final payout depends on the initial purchase price and the contract’s value at settlement.

EXAMPLE: The market estimates the probability of an event at 30 percent. This means a contract costs $0.30. You buy 100 “YES” contracts for a total stake of $30 (100 x 0.30 = 30). If the event happens, the contract pays out at the full rate (100 x 1 = 100). In this case, your profit equals $70 (100 – 30 = 70).

The market itself—the other participants—sets the price through buying and selling. In practice, every buyer pushes the price up, while every seller helps drive it down. Consequently, the current price represents a compromise between all participants—their knowledge, emotions, and appetite for risk. This dynamic places these markets at the intersection of gambling, data analysis, and crowdsourced forecasting.

The Tipping Point: A 24 Percent Chance of Detonation

The controversial nuclear explosion bet operated under the title “Nuclear weapon detonation by…?” Investors could wager on whether a nuclear weapon would detonate—due to an attack, a test, or even an accidental discharge—by specific deadlines: March 31, June 30, or before the year 2027.

The wager generated a turnover exceeding $800,000. During the escalation of the Middle East conflict, users valued the chance of a nuclear detonation before the end of the year at approximately 22–24 percent. This was not the first market of its kind; similar wagers in 2023 and 2025 generated trading volumes exceeding $1.7 million.

Why Did Polymarket Withdraw the Wager?

This particular bet coincided with escalating tensions involving the USA, Israel, and Iran—nations that possess or are suspected of possessing nuclear arms. Simultaneously, suspicious transactions appeared in other war-related markets on Polymarket. These factors sparked online accusations that the platform had created a market that “monetizes a nuclear attack.” Critics argued that individuals with access to classified military information could exploit such a market.

Polymarket created a market that could profit from a nuclear attack, amid rising fears that government officials capable of making military decisions are participating in these bets,

– wrote journalist David Sirota on X.

As criticism intensified, Polymarket quietly withdrew the wager on March 4. The site began displaying the message “This event has been archived,” and users lost the ability to trade. The platform issued no official statement regarding the move.

It seems quite obvious that we should not be betting on whether a nuclear weapon will be used in a conflict. Any slight benefit we might gain from knowing the probability of such an event is outweighed by how terrible it is to allow people to speculate on such an outcome,

– said prediction market analyst Dustin Gouker in an interview with Decrypt.

Wagers on War and Death

The nuclear wager was not the only one to spark outrage. Polymarket and its competitor, Kalshi, offered bets on the removal of leaders like Ali Khamenei or Nicolás Maduro. Previously, markets covered attacks on specific targets in Iran, the probability of full-scale war in various regions, and the risk of nuclear escalation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The payouts in some of these wagers have raised eyebrows:

• The attempted assassination of Ali Khamenei: One investor earned $553,000 betting on a U.S. attack.
• The removal of Maduro: An anonymous investor made $400,000 on a bet regarding the Venezuelan president’s capture just before a U.S. operation.
• Attacks on Iran: Six investors earned $1.2 million on bets placed before U.S. and Israeli strikes.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has kept a close watch on Polymarket for a long time. The commission previously penalized the platform, forcing it to restrict access for U.S. users. Now, the CFTC is considering an explicit ban on contracts involving events like war, terrorism, or political assassinations. New regulations would prevent licensed entities from offering wagers that “contradict the public interest.”

When Forecasting Becomes a Tragedy

The controversy surrounding the nuclear wager demonstrates that prediction markets have entered a territory where economics, ethics, and security policy collide. Many find the dissonance between a catastrophic event and a gambling opportunity unacceptable. They argue that betting on death, assassinations, or nuclear strikes normalizes the idea of tragedy as an investment opportunity.

Opponents also point to grave security concerns. Prediction markets could leak signals about planned military actions if people with classified knowledge trade on them. Furthermore, the thought that someone might attempt to influence the outcome of a bet using a nuclear weapon—however unlikely—remains haunting. For many, the mere existence of a financial interest in a global catastrophe is intolerable.

The Unmatched Accuracy of the Crowd

Conversely, supporters of prediction markets emphasize that they provide one of the best tools for gathering dispersed knowledge. People do not bet on what they claim in polls; they bet on what they are willing to back with their own money. Consequently, the odds in these markets often predict election results or central bank decisions more accurately than expert forecasts. As a result, society gains a better assessment of reality and remains less vulnerable to propaganda.

Regarding war and catastrophe, proponents argue that “pricing” nuclear risk or the outbreak of conflict forces politicians and the public to confront hard numbers instead of living under the delusion that “it will never happen.”

The Future of Prediction Markets

The withdrawal of the nuclear wager does not signal the end of prediction markets. However, it may mark a boundary that the industry must learn not to cross—or at least to approach with extreme caution.

We can expect platforms to treat markets related to war, terrorism, and mass violence with more sensitivity. Instead, they will likely focus on politics, the economy, or science—areas where the outcome does not equate to the tragedy of thousands.

For observers, regulators, and users alike, the Polymarket precedent remains a crucial case study. It forces us to ask whether, in this day and age, we can still say: “we won’t bet on that.” In the end, the ethics of the nuclear explosion bet will determine whether these platforms serve as vital sensors for the future or merely as cold observers of our potential destruction.

Read this article in Polish: Zakład o wybuch atomowy. Czy można obstawiać tragedię?