This is not an assassination market, it's a prediction market, but it can well work as an assassination market. If an universally reviled person has an 1:2 bet against him, this would not incentivize killers to take the huge risks of an assassination only to double their money.

Instead, they would be incentivized to kill other persons for whom players are betting they will live. On the other hand, players know that, so they will never bet against an assassination, except in the case they really do want to lose, thus transferring their loses as payment to the assassin.

When you have to put "assassination market" in quotes because you know that's not what it is. By pure coincidence the journalist finds a "new market" where a whole _single person_ is betting on whether DJT will survive 2018. Truely groundbreaking, shocking.

Besides being absolutely nothing new; The realer versions of this have existed on the deep web for over 5 years where people could bet with BTC (assmkedzgorodn7o).

If you're not just trying to cause outrage, you use more neutral language like "die" instead of "be killed" in your definition of the market. And really, for a functioning market you need a number of bettors who aren't actively involved in assassinating or preventing assassinations.

I heard that there's a feature which allows you to flag a prediction on Augur as "unethical"?

Given that tontines are illegal in the US and much of the world, this seems risky even if you’re able to ignore any moral dimension.

Its not Jim Bell's Assassination Politics but we're getting there.

More proof that crypto is bad

I fail to see the problem of having working markets.

If anything, it is helpful for the target: they can know when to invest money to protect themselves, and collect on the failing prediction.

I'll assume this is flagged because it's not favorable to broadcast this feature to the public, and "investors" aka HODLers here at Hackernews would want to hide this event.