Why Midas Oracle will have to drop InTrade
Chris F. Masse July 12th, 2008
UPDATE:
Why I am dropping InTrade from the Midas Oracle coverage of the prediction markets
-
InTrade Ireland made the stupid decisions to drop their chart widgets from InTrade V1, a while ago, and to discontinue their support for V2 (which has been supporting chart widgets). Soon, a new version of InTrade V1 will be pushed out. If, when out, that brand-new V1 of InTrade does not support chart widgets (and/or dynamic charts), then I’ll drop InTrade from the Midas Oracle coverage of the prediction markets.
-
-
The most usable prediction exchange from the standpoint of bloggers is NewsFutures. Emile and his team have done an ultra fantastic work to make easy for us to embed chart widgets. I don’t see why I would generate free publicity for those decerebrated idiots in Ireland, while the NewsFutures people and system obviously would deserve it much more.
-
PS: TradeSports is OK. They still support their chart widgets. BetFair is semi OK. They support the republishing of dynamic charts, but, alas, those charts die immediately after contract expiration.
-
- Exchanges & Markets , Internet Usability , Journalism & Prediction Market Journalism , Software
- Comments(17)
I don’t see why I would generate free publicity for those decerebrated idiots in Ireland, while the NewsFutures people and system obviously would deserve it much more.
-
So, you’re not a real reporter after all - objectively presenting the facts as they come within your reach. I think that’s a healthy conclusion as long as you’re aware of it yourself. And your readers are too. Because there is no such thing.
-
Something that does deserve some attention on a blog called “Midas Oracle”, in my view, is the manipulation that went on yesterday in the stock market, by shorts. First on the way down, then (supposedly) on the way up. Well, here it is. People are begging the SEC to step in and set an example of the manipulating scum who call themselves “traders”. If not, we could be looking at a serious danger to our economy and the well-being of the entire earth’s population. And so, the mainstream media have to step in again and inject another (healthy) dosage of trust to keep the financial system from collapsing. And we can criticize them again for their one-sided view, which will undoubtedly improve once we have citizen media ! Right… Back to sex, drugs & rock & roll.
Hi medemi, thanks for your comments on my submission before. What exactly do you think was manipulative about yesterday’s action? To me it seemed that the market feared an equity crunch as with Bear in the morning, but Paulson’s comments and the discount window story pushed this possibility off. With the discount window story, it seems that the rumors were mostly true.
Jason,
-
it’s about Lehman Brothers. Merrill Lynch could be next. Hell, anyone could be next.
Been going on for a couple of days now. Saw it on CNBC yesterday. Some people are not happy.
http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....sorkin.php
You can probably find a more recent article should you be interested.
In the past year or so, most rumors that weren’t patently absurd like Buffett buying Bear have turned out to be more-or-less true, but you would ask to what degree that is because of self-fulfilling prophesy. Rumors and speculators definitely can move time forward and help to stoke a situation towards its climax, so to speak, but, in liquid markets, can’t create a durable distortion with no fundamental basis. And I don’t consider asset class flows and bubbles to be manipulative distortions per se.
A financial institution’s survival these days depends on confidence. Scumbag manipulators can have a devastating effect, by spreading false rumors. Why am I even telling you this ? You should know this.
-
“The investment bank has been the subject of false rumors in the past, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether investors have looked to profit by spreading rumors to push down the company’s shares.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25646203/for/cnbc/
-
Yesterday there was a specific rumor that wasn’t true. I don’t know exactly what it was about.
On Thursday, its shares were battered by rumors — later discredited — that some key customers, Pimco and SAC Capital, had pulled business away from it. Pimco, the world’s biggest bond fund, said on Thursday it continued to trade normally with Lehman as did SAC, a prominent hedge fund.
-
Maybe that’s what it was.
I know, and yet I perceive some truth, some signal, in those rumors even if Pimco and SAC have not eliminated all business as of Friday. Maybe I am biased to the sort of thing that has made money this past year.
So, it would be fair to conclude that
1) We have sort of become used to rumors in the marketplace
2) There is usually some truth to them
-
That’s not a sound foundation on which we will have to enter next weeks troubled marketplace, and I would personally hate to put a figure on the odds of a complete economic meltdown next week. 2 % ?
Well, we are not alone.
-
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Sunday that it and other regulators are firing up new examinations to prevent stock-price manipulation by short sellers and others.
http://www.marketwatch.com/new.....t=hplatest
Medemi:
-
So, you’re not a real reporter after all - objectively presenting the facts as they come within your reach. I think that’s a healthy conclusion as long as you’re aware of it yourself. And your readers are too. Because there is no such thing.
-
Can’t real reporters report an opinion based on the facts?
-
Oh, BTW: Betfair isn’t semi-OK. LOL. They may have good widgets (sounds fun) but they have a few too many other issues currently to be “OK”.
Can’t real reporters report an opinion based on the facts?
-
To be able to answer that question you’ll first have to ask yourself “what are facts ?”.
I can make my case on a certain issue and give you a shitload of facts, and the result can be an extremely one-sided view. And then one can unleash a personal opinion on top of that, which will usually be in line with the facts presented. A good example is David Icke. But that’s ok, he has a good reason for offering an opposing view. And that’s what it is, a view. Despite all the facts he’s presenting.
-
My point is that true journalism doesn’t exist. We have a selective mind, so we will report selectively as well. All we can ask for from a journalist is valuable information. And hopefully a view that isn’t one-sided all the time. That goes for everyone btw, hence, true journalism does not exist IMO.
@Caruso: Folks, I disabled “Bad Behavior” and re-enabled “WP Spam Free”, because this night I had 60 spam comments. I have e-mailed the author of BB.
-
If you have trouble commenting, tell me by e-mail. Thanks.
Who is BB? Did I do something?
-
Medemi, OK. However, saying “you’re not a real reporter after all” is a bit stiff in my opinion if a real reporter doesn’t exist. Not being what can’t be is OK, LOL.
@Caruso: BB = Bad Behavior
It’s an anti-spam plugin for WordPress.
-
You didn’t do anythign wrong.
saying “you’re not a real reporter after all” is a bit stiff in my opinion
-
You are being stiff. I take into account other people’s views more often than the average person. When I mix them with my own it sometimes looks like there is a discrepancy. This has never been a personal issue and I don’t need you to make it one by quoting me out of context.
Medemi, I wasn’t trying to be remotely personal, nor do I think the comments come across as such. I’m sorry you took it that way.
I didn’t take it that way. We’re ok.
-
“you’re not a real reporter after all”
(There it is again, sorry Chris)
-
This was just a confirmation of my own beliefs - that real reporters in the purest sense don’t exist IMO. Maybe even a philosophical note. When seen within the context I put it, that should (might) become obvious. When quoted seperately out of context, it looks differently and might be conceived as a personal remark, from me. That’s all there is to it.