KVB has it exactly right.
The wording was vague - but considering DEATH (including assignation) is not an allowable contract - it was the correct decision.
If “death pools” were allowable betting/futures contracts - you’d see many more. They are not for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is it might inspire some but case to try and kill a celebrity or offer a large incentive to the person who does to collect a large payout).
It’s even legally enforceable that you cannot purchase life insurance on a persons life without insurable interest in may jurisdictions. If you have no financial exposure to someone - you cannot legally profit from their death. Think along the lines of someone who owes you a large amount of money, is the source or your income or who co-owns a business with you.
The price reflected the correct odds that a 86 year old would VOLUNTARILY step down or be overthrown by the people. Not that he would die (natural causes or not).
Simple logic tells you that if you have the chance to bet at anything above +100 on the no that a 86 year old leader of a terroristic state would be alive year to year - it’s pretty smart bet. The bet was only will he step down from power.
The ONLY path they have to challenge this is the vagueness of the wording - but something tells me there is likely a clause buried in the terms and conditions limiting the ability to challenge it or forcing binding arbitration at minimum.
The wording was vague - but considering DEATH (including assignation) is not an allowable contract - it was the correct decision.
If “death pools” were allowable betting/futures contracts - you’d see many more. They are not for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is it might inspire some but case to try and kill a celebrity or offer a large incentive to the person who does to collect a large payout).
It’s even legally enforceable that you cannot purchase life insurance on a persons life without insurable interest in may jurisdictions. If you have no financial exposure to someone - you cannot legally profit from their death. Think along the lines of someone who owes you a large amount of money, is the source or your income or who co-owns a business with you.
The price reflected the correct odds that a 86 year old would VOLUNTARILY step down or be overthrown by the people. Not that he would die (natural causes or not).
Simple logic tells you that if you have the chance to bet at anything above +100 on the no that a 86 year old leader of a terroristic state would be alive year to year - it’s pretty smart bet. The bet was only will he step down from power.
The ONLY path they have to challenge this is the vagueness of the wording - but something tells me there is likely a clause buried in the terms and conditions limiting the ability to challenge it or forcing binding arbitration at minimum.
