Polymarket allows users to bet on when the U.S. military pilot will be rescued.

An F-15E was shot down over Iran, and Polymarket launched a market: Will the U.S. confirm the pilot's rescue on April 3rd or April 4th?
Users can bet Yes or No. Over 63% of the bets are on the pilot not being rescued soon.
Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton was outraged. He wrote on social media: They could be your neighbors, friends, or family. And some are betting on whether they will come back alive.
He called Polymarket a dystopian death market. By the way, he mentioned that Donald Trump Jr. is an investor in Polymarket.
Polymarket later took down the market, saying it did not meet the company's integrity standards.
But Moulton pointed out that there are still 219 war-related betting markets running on the platform.
The good news is that both pilots have been rescued. Trump announced on Sunday that the second weapons systems officer was also rescued.
The bad news is that this incident exposed the ethical bottom line issues of prediction markets.
Polymarket's logic is that prediction markets can provide more accurate probability assessments than polls.
This is indeed useful for elections and policy forecasts. But when the subject becomes human life and death, the narrative of market efficiency is no longer sufficient.
Think about it—if someone profits from betting that the pilots won't be rescued, do they want the pilots to be rescued or not?
Prediction markets are not neutral. When the bet amounts are large enough, participants have an incentive to influence the outcome.
This is not a problem in most scenarios. But in situations involving human lives, this mechanism is dangerous.
Markets have boundaries. Not everything should be priced.