Polymarket Slammed for Enbaling Bets on Devastating California Wildfires

Blockchain-based prediction platform Polymarket is under fire for hosting markets that allow users to bet on the outcomes of the ongoing California wildfires.

Critics have condemned the practice as exploitative and unethical, accusing the platform of profiting from tragedy.

The fires, which ignited in the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday, have spread across Los Angeles, forcing the evacuation of nearly 200,000 residents, claiming five lives, and scorching nearly 30,000 acres.

Despite the devastation, Polymarket users have launched multiple betting markets on the fire's progression, containment timeline, and even potential political fallout.

A search on the platform reveals nine active wildfire-related bets, with some attracting significant wagers.

Two of the most traded markets—predicting the total acreage burned by Friday and whether the Palisades wildfire will reach Santa Monica by Sunday—each boast over $90,000 in volume, with some markets nearing $100,000.

This is not the first time Polymarket has faced backlash for capitalising on crises.

Last year, the platform drew widespread criticism for allowing bets on the fate of the Titan submersible, where users speculated on whether the vessel would implode and claim the lives of its five passengers.

Public Outage as Polymarket Accused of Exploiting Tragedy with Wildfire Betting

Polymarket's wildfire betting markets have sparked widespread outrage, with many condemning them as unethical and exploitative.

“Betting on a wildfire is sick,”one X user declared, while another called it "uncouth beyond fucking measure.”

Critics argue that placing wagers on a disaster trivialises human suffering, with some even raising concerns that such markets could incentivise arson.

Scepticism has also emerged over the validity of the odds presented.

One user pointed out that the probabilities displayed are not scientific forecasts but merely a reflection of bettor sentiment, responding to a Polymarket post with:

“No, there is no '48% chance it will spread,' there are 48% of people betting on that to happen.”

Adding fuel to the controversy, Polymarket has actively promoted these bets on social media, further amplifying criticism.

Many argue that an environmental catastrophe should never be treated as a gambling opportunity, with some calling for the platform to be banned altogether.

Writer and podcaster Tyler Harper denounced the trend, stating that turning everything into a wager is both "evil and depraved.”

Others see wildfire betting as a sign of gambling addiction, with one user bluntly suggesting that those participating should "check into rehab.”

Polymarket Defends Its Market as a Source of Objective and Data-Driven Insights

Despite mounting criticism over its wildfire betting markets, Polymarket defends its platform as a source of unbiased, data-driven forecasts.

To distance itself from ethical concerns, the company includes disclaimers on wildfire-related bets, stating that its markets simply aggregate collective intelligence to produce objective predictions.

The note reads:

“The promise of prediction markets is to harness the wisdom of the crowd to create accurate, unbiased forecasts for the most important events impacting society. The devastating Pacific Palisades fire is one such event, for which Polymarket can yield invaluable real-time answers to those directly impacted in ways traditional media cannot.”

It also argues that users can access real-time insights unavailable through traditional media.

Polymarket further claims it does not profit from these markets, as it does not charge fees on wildfire bets.

However, critics remain unconvinced, with business and tech reporter Thomas Maxwell among those calling for the platform's shutdown.

Yet, such action appears unlikely, as Polymarket does not operate within US jurisdiction.

While the platform asserts its value in tracking unfolding events, relying on a crypto prediction site over credible news sources during a crisis remains highly questionable.

Another Threat Looms: AI-Generated Deepfakes

As firefighters battle wildfires across Los Angeles, a new challenge emerges: AI-generated deepfakes spreading misinformation.

On Wednesday, fabricated images of the Hollywood sign engulfed in flames circulated on X (formerly known as Twitter), misleading users into believing Mount Lee was ablaze.

Soon after, more false visuals appeared, including staged depictions of looting, further fuelling confusion.

This wave of AI-driven misinformation mirrors past crises, such as Hurricane Helene last September, when fabricated images of devastation spread online, deceiving those unfamiliar with the affected areas.

Tim Weninger, professor of computer science and engineering at University of Notre Dame, expressed:

“It's likely trolling, and they think it's funny. It could also be social or political, like implying California deserves to burn, criticizing Governor Newsom, or reacting to DEI in firefighting. These are the main reasons, but there could be others.”

The rapid dissemination of deepfakes is exacerbated by social media's viral nature and a lack of clear communication from authorities, making it harder for the public to separate fact from fiction.

Misinformation is not just a technological issue—it is driven by human behaviour.

As researcher Weninger points out, every share or like serves as an endorsement, amplifying false narratives.

He added:

“Social media problems are sometimes technology or fact-checking problems, but mostly they are values issues. As a society, we don't value sharing accurate, truthful information enough. Every social media user must decide this for themselves. Technology can't do it for them, nor can anyone else.”

Meanwhile, the Hollywood Sign Trust has reassured the public that the landmark remains unharmed, standing as a stark contrast to the AI-generated illusions:

“Griffith Park is closed for precautionary reasons. The sign is safe and sound, and there is no validity to these false rumors.”

In an era where technology blurs the line between fact and fiction, one unsettling question remains: Are people turning tragedy into entertainment?