The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Market mechanics and pricing

  • Many commenters focus on the article’s core point: “Yes” buying can be rational even if you assign near‑zero probability to Jesus returning, because:
    • High‑probability “No” shares tie up capital all year and pay less than risk‑free interest.
    • Some traders expect “No” holders to need liquidity near resolution and to sell at a discount, letting “Yes” buyers profit by flipping earlier (“time value of money” and liquidity arbitrage).
  • Others extend this to broader markets: a lot of trading is about second‑order effects (liquidity, other traders’ behavior, volatility), not just beliefs about underlying events.

Resolution and oracle risk

  • A recurring concern: “The resolution source will be a consensus of credible sources” is vague.
    • Who counts as “credible”? Religious authorities, media, governments?
    • Several say they wouldn’t believe a purported Second Coming even with miracles, papal endorsement, or mass agreement; they’d suspect trickery or psychosis.
  • Some argue that for Polymarket, reputational incentives should keep resolution sane; others note prior oracle‑manipulation controversies and see this as the real “elephant in the room.”

Who is betting “Yes”?

  • One camp doubts that serious “true believers” are buying “Yes”:
    • In many Christian eschatologies, if Jesus returns you’re either raptured or in tribulation, so you can’t or don’t care to cash out.
    • Many denominations also frown on gambling.
  • Others counter:
    • Some believers might use the bet as a costly signal of faith (“put money where their mouth is”), or as a proselytizing stunt.
    • Non‑Christian eschatologies (e.g., some Islamic views) involve Jesus returning without the world immediately ending, which could affect behavior—though gambling is often forbidden there too.
  • A few suggest more mundane motives: speculation on market inefficiencies, bots or “degenerate gamblers” chasing fat‑tail payoffs.

Limits of prediction markets

  • Several posters use this case to argue prediction markets don’t straightforwardly encode probabilities:
    • Prices at extreme odds are distorted by interest rates, capital costs, and thin liquidity.
    • There’s also counterparty/oracle risk and incentive to exploit resolution edge cases.
  • Some express growing preference for AI forecasting over human prediction markets, given how much effort goes into arbitrage and meta‑games rather than information gathering.

Religious and philosophical tangents

  • Large subthreads veer into:
    • Jesus, wealth, and the “camel through the eye of a needle” saying—debates over whether it condemns the rich outright, targets attachment to wealth, or has been softened by later myths (like the “needle gate”).
    • Prosperity theology vs. more austere interpretations; hypocrisy of modern Christianity vs. biblical teachings.
    • Rapture timelines, Revelation imagery, and whether current global conditions match prophetic “signs.”
    • Broader arguments on faith vs. evidence, free will, hell, salvation outside specific denominations, and whether religion or secular ethics better explain morality.

Meta: off‑topic flamewar

  • Multiple users and moderators note that most of the thread has drifted from prediction markets into generic religion/atheism battles.
  • They quote Hacker News guidelines about avoiding ideological combat and keeping divisive discussions thoughtful and on‑topic.