This article does not represent the consensus views of Oddchain writers.

Exhaustion and analysis. 

Dead Americans make it easy to be wrong about things. Classic hot blood/red mist stuff. Facts tend to lose their axiomatic stability under tectonic pressure from reality-warping discourse that can last decades -- or even centuries -- after the relevant death. Pat Tillman, MLK, Aaron Bushnell, Assata: there’s a rattlebag of names that each make a fine example of the phenomenon I’m describing where historical consensus becomes, at times, permanently obscured as sweaty-collared polemicists apply their personal faction’s topspin to the relevant corpse. It’s the type of stuff that makes Thanksgiving tables a touch uncivil all over America, and your family probably has a personal fave they beef over. 

I don’t know for sure the circumstances surrounding Alex Pretti’s passing, the latest Dead American for us to fight over. Despite my efforts to hone my intuition for moneymaking reasons, I continue to lack the capacity to peer into another’s soul and perfectly divine their intentions. Who knows what he or what the agent who emptied clips into his body was thinking. 

But -- at the risk of alienating some portion of Oddchain readership in order to make what I hope will be an insightful observation about prediction markets -- I will say this: I believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Pretti was murdered without cause by the state. I believe that the Hague would be too good for the people involved. I believe any civil society would immediately disband ICE and prosecute everyone involved with its formation, operation, and administration, going back multiple presidencies.

When it comes to prediction markets, however, my beliefs don’t quite matter. In fact, they can actively impede my rational participation in the relevant markets. Let me explain:

On Sunday, as thousands of Minnesotans protested ICE occupation throughout the state, some friends and I were idly debating early Oscar predictions. One friend, in possession of extremely good taste and generally sharp logical faculties, insisted that Sinners was a strong underdog choice on the market, currently sitting around 25% odds. She believed, and argued with great conviction for myriad reasons, that it was a superior film when compared to the frontrunner, One Battle After Another. 

It took a good deal of convincing that the respective quality of the movies didn’t matter. The Academy is a whole lot of old people who’ve chosen a fantasy or Sci-Fi flick for best picture a grand total of three times throughout its 100 year existence (The Shape Of Water, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, and Everything Everywhere All At Once). With that in mind, an argument can be made that on that basis it’s highly unlikely that the Academy will choose Sinners, which is a fun, sexy, vampire romp. On other hand, the Academy has nearly doubled in membership in the last 14 years, demographics have changed, places like Variety currently have Sinners as a favorite, and the narrative momentum of their Oscar’s campaign may be picking up. (Our full analysis is forthcoming. Subscribe to get it.)  

This type of thinking is a mistake that even seasoned prediction market participants can make. What you think should come to pass due to your beliefs and what will happen can be very different things, especially when you have strong ethical or aesthetic views. This was a market inefficiency that plagued the early days of Polymarket in particular, back when liquidity was lower and the average participant skewed crypto-libertarian in flavor. 

Often, the brighter the flashpoint the more obscured the historical truth. Emotions are running high; I am personally exhausted with debating right and wrong on social media. In the context of the markets, however, moral right and wrong are somewhat irrelevant, and instead we look to history to try and glean lessons and venture a guess as to what actually happens next. 

Thankfully, while we have to pretend to be rational market actors for this exercise, politicians emerge from their slime-sacks in such a state. The reptiles largely lack beliefs entirely, which to a certain extent make them extremely predictable -- unlike arguing about Fred Hampton with your drunk uncle at a holiday, suddenly we’re all playing the same game. 

So, for the sake of rationality, let’s look at a few examples. 

There are two live markets essentially devoted to the question of whether or not the killers of Alex Pretti and Renee Good will be held accountable. 

The one devoted to Alex Pretti’s killer is difficult to parse. A Minnesota judge has ordered the federal government to preserve evidence related to the death, which seems like something you’d do if you’re planning to press charges. 

Conversely, however, nobody likes charging cops with murder. Estimates peg the frequency that LEOs face charges for on-duty killings to be around 2%. 

The counterargument, of course, is that pressing charges against a member of an increasingly unpopular institution would be a fine way for some DA to kick off a political career -- they would hardly be the first, and the Minnesota judiciary seems particularly incensed. This market feels like a coin flip. 

By contrast, there is a market for Good’s killer that is structurally different. Instead of facing charges (though there is also a charge market), this market revolves around whether he will be fired or resign. 

Renee’s killer is unlikely to be going anywhere before the 31st of March as even if he is charged by the Minnesota Government, he is likely to be placed on paid leave, if anything, not fired or forced to resign. Administrative leave while under investigation is considered standard practice, and it can last upwards of years. 

In both cases, there is video evidence supporting the innocence of the victims. In the Derek Chauvin case, for example, video evidence is partly what led to multiple officers being quickly fired, but at the time Joe Biden was the President of the United States. 

Even though there is similarly strong video evidence that Alex Pretti was merely carrying a phone at the time of his public execution, the Trump administration has doubled down on the narrative that Alex Petti was a terrorist with a gun. Additionally, in this killing, the officers were federal and not local as in the Chauvin case. This means that Minneapolis and the Minnesota government aren't calling the shots this time, the federal government is. 

Interestingly, unlike in the Chauvin case, the NRA and other gun activist groups have pushed back against the Trump administration for killing a licensed gun owner. This means that there is pressure from more than one side of the United States political spectrum this time, but less sympathy, and arguably much more animus, from the Federal Government for the victim. 

There is a third Minneapolis public execution case that we can also look to for potential guidance: the killing of Justine Damond (Ruszczyk). Like in the Pretti case, Damond was white and Donald Trump was also the President of the United States at the time. Unlike in the Pretti case, there was no video of Damond’s murder (both officers had bodycams, but had switched them off), though a 16-year-old on his bike did take videos of the scene using his cell-phone after the shooting ended. However, unlike in the Pretti case, Damond was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer, not a federal officer. 

Damond’s death triggered widespread street protests, however, they were mostly localized to Minneapolis. In Damond’s case, the officer was fired nine days after the shooting, while charges took over 8 months to file (much more slowly compared to the Chauvin case).  

And then of course, as discussed above there is also the killing of Renee Nicole Good, 17 days before Pretti’s death. Similar to Pretti, Good was shot and killed by a federal agent. Like Pretti, she was also white and there are bystander videos which appear to contradict the claims of the officers who were present at the scene of her death, and like with Pretti, Donald Trump was President of the United States at the time of her killing. In Good’s case, the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office immediately claimed exclusive federal jurisdiction, and blocked the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing evidence, which the Minnesota government (perhaps learning from Good’s case) has attempted to preempt by issuing the injunction to preserve evidence in Pretti’s case.

The biggest factor affecting these cases appears to be whether the law enforcement officer who conducted the shooting is a federal or state employee. Or to put things another way, whether the police officer is technically protected by the Supremacy Clause.

What this means for traders is that it’s unlikely that any federal agent is getting fired any time soon. And, if they are punished, it’ll likely take the form of paid administrative leave. If anyone is going to pursue charges it will be the state and local government, and there will likely be a severe, multi-year delay, engendered by interventions from the federal government.

Resolving in four days, there’s an open question as to whether President Trump will deploy troops in response to the rioting. 

Recent reporting from the WSJ indicates Trump is distancing himself from ethnonationalist Stephen Miller, and he has implied he’s thinking about withdrawing federal officials from Minnesota entirely. 

This one may be a bond.

Politicians watch the streets. 

If either the rioting reaches a certain threshold of violence or the latest round of public polling emerges that shows a significant sentiment shift on ICE ahead of midterms, you can expect one self-styled libertarian -- for instance, Thomas Massie -- to suddenly stand up for their ‘beliefs’. It will be the first time they stood since emerging from the pond where they spawned. 

Oddchain will be waiting for a big molotov-induced fire or a particularly damning survey, but will likely bid yes at some point. 

This article does not represent the consensus views of Oddchain writers. Stay safe.