The Startup Different Podcast · 2026-05-26 · 19 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
37 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
The hosts discuss the troubling intersection of gambling and news after Google was caught surfacing Polymarket betting odds alongside legitimate news articles in Google News. Following revelations that Google had already signed a deal in November 2025 to integrate Polymarket and Kalshi prediction data into Google Finance, the hosts debate whether the inclusion was a genuine error or an intentional test balloon. The conversation expands to examine how prediction markets are aggressively seeking legitimacy through partnerships with mainstream media outlets including CNN, Dow Jones, and X (formerly Twitter), effectively rebranding gambling as credible forecasting. The core concern centers on how these platforms monetize bets on real-world events - including potential nuclear weapons deployment, military strikes, and international conflicts - creating perverse incentives where users profit from catastrophic outcomes. The hosts compare this to advertorials and deepfake endorsements as ethical boundary violations, ultimately concluding that prediction markets represent a desperate play by struggling traditional news outlets seeking both audience engagement and revenue through what amounts to sponsored gambling advertisements.
Google claimed the inclusion was an error and removed Polymarket from its news feed after public backlash, though the hosts suspect it was an intentional test given Google's pre-existing November 2025 deal to integrate Polymarket data into Google Finance.
Unlike sports betting, prediction markets allow betting on geopolitical events like nuclear weapon deployment and military strikes, creating financial incentives for users to profit from catastrophic outcomes and potentially influencing real-world behavior.
Polymarket functions like a casino, taking a commission (typically around 20%) from the total bet pool, with crowdsourced odds determining payouts based on perceived likelihood rather than any proprietary forecasting model.
CNN has integrated Kalshi prediction data into live broadcasts, Dow Jones (Wall Street Journal's publisher) partnered with Polymarket, and X (Elon Musk's company) named Polymarket its official prediction market partner.
Prediction markets appear to face stronger legal restrictions in Canada compared to the U.S., where CNN and other outlets openly integrate Polymarket odds into news coverage.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode identifies a real problem - prediction markets being legitimized and integrated into news feeds - but spends considerable time on casual conversation, tangents (Fallout TV show, Vegas gambling anecdotes), and repetitive moral hand-wringing rather than drilling into novel mechanisms or business dynamics. A B2B operator learns that prediction markets are problematic and that news outlets are monetizing them, but little actionable insight about *why* this works, *how* the incentive structures compound, or *what* operators should do differently.
Poly Market is like, you can bet on anything, right?
this was intentional based on what you said
The core observation - that gambling platforms are being disguised as news, creating moral hazard around real-world events - is reasonable but not novel or contrarian. The episode recycles standard criticisms of addiction, regulatory arbitrage, and corporate desperation without offering fresh analysis, counterarguments, or first-principles thinking. The Fallout reference and advertorial comparison are illustrative but not original intellectual work.
when you put it into a news feed, you're passing off like, gambling as credibility
It's fraud of another name
This is a two-person co-hosted episode with no external guest. Neither host appears to have operational expertise in prediction markets, financial regulation, or news media business models. Speaker A mentions past work at Queen's Journal in a business role, but the discussion is primarily opinion-based without demonstrable practitioner credibility or insider perspective on how these platforms actually work or what operators are optimizing for.
I, I, I know nothing
I have no idea
The episode cites specific incidents (Google-Polymarket integration, Israeli military insider betting, $400k Veneto wager, CNN partnership with Kalshi, Dow Jones partnership with Polymarket) but provides minimal detail, no numbers on scale of activity, no concrete revenue figures for prediction markets or news outlets, and no hard data on user behavior or financial impact. The examples are real but treated descriptively rather than analytically.
January 2026, an anonymous user walked away with over 400,000 after placing a bet that venue's president would be ousted
Kalshee partner with CNN for real time prediction data on live broadcast. Polymarket, partner with Dow Jones
The hosts ask some follow-up questions (how does the business model work, how do odds get set) but accept vague or speculative answers without pushing. Speaker B occasionally probes deeper (asking whether Google's integration was intentional), but the conversation often drifts into peripheral topics (Fallout plot, Vegas anecdotes, news industry nostalgia) rather than maintaining pressure on core claims. There is limited genuine disagreement or challenge of assumptions.
So how do they come up with odds on something like opening the Strait of Hormuz?
I have no idea.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Google News started showing Polymarket gambling bets right alongside articles from Reuters, The Guardian, and the Financial Times - and when people noticed, Google called it "an error." But was it really? With Google already having a formal data partnership with Polymarket, and prediction markets aggressively pursuing legitimacy through deals with CNN, Dow Jones, and Elon Musk's X, the line between news and gambling is getting deliberately blurred. Chris and David unpack what this incident reveals about how algorithms decide what counts as "news" - and why prediction markets are engineered to exploit exactly those signals. They dig into the growing list of Polymarket scandals, from a suspicious $400K bet placed hours before the US invasion of Venezuela to Israeli military personnel betting on their own upcoming strikes, and debate whether prediction markets are a legitimate information tool or just gambling dressed up in news formatting.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Speaker A: There's like a certain moral, uh, footing under whatever it is we're doing. We, ah, believe in what we're doing and that thing is generally good for people and provides value and it's so good they're willing to pay for it. That's like, is the crux of it. There are other people who though, I think, perceive like going to market as like, how do I fool people into opening their wallet by accident?
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: How do I get like, how do I can, like it's a shitty product, but it's, I can probably bamboozle enough people to give me money or it's something that manipulates people or it's something that makes people addicted to it.
Speaker B: Start it up, let's get it rolling Big ideas, money folding hustle smart dream so wild Turn that grind into a joy ride. Dave, do you like gambling?
Speaker A: What are you trying to say? Like, generally, yeah. Ah, but I'm not much of a game actually.
Speaker B: Are you, do you go on like, sports gambling?
Speaker A: Hell no. I, I, I grew up in a time where I watched sports for the love of the game and I still just love the games. You know, I, I find it really kind, um, of weird that it's like, oh, I have to bet to be like, into it. Like some people do that. And I'm like, why though? It's like, isn't the point, like you're just like, into it. It's in. Or it's amazing to watch like these people who are incredibly like, well, depends on the sport, but like, you know, peak physical specimens doing something incredible. Yeah, you know.
Speaker B: Yeah. I like.
Speaker A: Have you actually gone to a basketball game? I know you have, like with me, but when you get close enough to the court, those are, yeah, they are freaks of nature and ah, they are unbelievable at what they're doing. And you're just like, wow, this is crazy to watch.
Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. So I'm, I'm in the same boat. I've uh, I like watching sports for watching sports and being impressed by their skills and that sort of stuff. And uh, I don't, I'm not into the gambling. I, you know, but it's crazy lucrative. Yeah, there's a, uh, yeah. The stats on how much gambling is going on in professional sports is insane. Um, and now there's this new thing. Have you heard of Poly Market?
Speaker A: Yeah, of course.
Speaker B: Cal Sheep. Okay.
Speaker A: Poly Market is like, you can bet on anything, right?
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: There's like the over, under, on like whether or not the Straight of Hormuz is going to be open and over under on, uh, I don't know how long national anthem is going to take out a sports game. And over under at, like, like, everything is basically up for bad.
Speaker B: Yeah. Apparently it's interesting who wins some of these.
Speaker A: All these insider. It's all insider trading, I assume. Exactly.
Speaker B: So, uh, uh, here's kind of the background.
Speaker A: Doesn't Jared Kushner, like, win a lot or something? Yeah, and you're, you know, oh, my God. But then it'll be something freaky like, are aliens real or not? Over, under, like, Jared Kushner's like, on the yes side, you're like, what the. Anyway, sorry.
Speaker B: All right, so the reason I'm bringing this up is because, uh, Google got into a little bit of trouble recently.
Speaker A: Google.
Speaker B: Uh, so what happened is that, um, the polymarket bets started appearing alongside actual news articles in Google News, including, uh, including the, uh, for you section, and even at the very top, uh, search results in some cases. Yeah.
Speaker A: So good job, polymarket folks on getting in the climb of that SEO ladder.
Speaker B: Yeah. So apparently if you went in, uh, to Google News and you did a search for will ships transit, the straight to the straight of.
Speaker A: There you go. Yeah.
Speaker B: Uh, it returned articles from Reuters and the Guardian and stuff like that. Plus Poly Market gambling, uh, bets on how many ships, uh, are pass through.
Speaker A: Okay, yeah, all of a sudden, this
Speaker B: is getting a little nice. Uh, so. So obviously everybody freaked out about this. So, uh, Google, uh, said that the inclusion was like an error mistake. Okay. Uh, remove the poly market from news. Um, and a spokesperson said that it briefly appeared in Google News in air and is no longer surfacing news. Okay, so they really quickly backtracked. Yeah, of course.
Speaker A: Well, I don't think they were trying to do it, as my gut feel. There's no way they were like, let's make sure we get market to the top, because how would they benefit, really?
Speaker B: Well, uh,
Speaker A: this is a hot take, so I don't actually know what you're about to say.
Speaker B: So, uh, Google had already announced a deal, uh, in. In November 2025 with both Polymarket and Cali to feed their prediction data into Google Finance. Okay. So there was already a relationship.
Speaker A: Okay.
Speaker B: And everybody's kind of like, was that an oopsie or was that. Actually, you know, we're going to test balloon this and see if everybody freaks out or not. Maybe it just becomes your gambling feed
Speaker A: brought to you by Google.
Speaker B: Yeah. So, uh, obviously, polymarket has been some scandals, as you alluded to. So January 2026, an anonymous user walked away with over 400,000 after placing a bet that venue's president would be ousted. Wow. And that happened just hours before the US troops invaded the country.
Speaker A: Wow.
Speaker B: Okay, so, uh, uh, 400,000. Yeah.
Speaker A: Holy Jesus.
Speaker B: So apparently in Israel, uh, they arrested members of its own military for placing polymarket pets using inside knowledge about upcoming military strikes.
Speaker A: Right.
Speaker B: Uh, polymarket quietly took down a bet on whether a nuclear weapon would be detonated before the end of the year, raising concerns.
Speaker A: Oh, my. Incentivizing nuclear strike. Yeah.
Speaker B: Wow. Yeah.
Speaker A: Uh, and that's, uh, basically the plot of Fallout, by the way.
Speaker B: Is it? Yeah.
Speaker A: Have you ever watched that TV show? It's also an awesome video game series.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: But, like. Yeah, the plot, you know. Spoiler. Ah. If you don't want to hear this, just pause for the night or skip ahead 25 seconds. But basically, the. The wife of one of the main characters works for Vault Tech, the company where they put all these vaults across America.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: And they were, like, trying to figure out how to get people more interested in buying Vault, like subscriptions so they could be safe in the event of a nuclear attack.
Speaker B: That.
Speaker A: And so they do this. And, uh, they're like, there's like a meeting that's, like, recorded that he can, like, listen to. He is a bug on one of them. And it's like, well, we have to incentivize war. We have to. We have to make. Get closer and closer to war because then that makes our product more valuable and.
Speaker B: Yikes. Uh, okay.
Speaker A: It's pretty up.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Anyway, yeah.
Speaker B: Wow.
Speaker A: I fall. It's like a really very much like a commentary on, like, capitalism as well, just kind of interesting. It's basically like, you can never trust big companies is the way you think about it. So I kind of like it.
Speaker B: Anyway, uh, so then the other piece here, Prediction, uh, Marks are aggressively seeking legitimacy. So you can imagine Polymark Kelshi are trying to, you know, become legitimized and be like. Like normal. Right. So Kelsey, partner, like, mainstream.
Speaker A: Yeah.
Speaker B: Yeah. So Kalshee, partner with CNN for real time prediction data on live broadcast. Polymarket, partner with Dow Jones, uh, which is the Wall Street Journal's publisher, and Elon Musk's ex, named Polymarket's official prediction market partner. So there's like this whole, like, let's legitimize this thing that's going on.
Speaker A: Hate this.
Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. All right, so just work.
Speaker A: Yeah. Uh, go get a job, get money, start a side hustle. I mean, we're obviously start of different, but, like, come on, like, there's no get rich quick.
Speaker B: So you can, you can see it's.
Speaker A: It's fraud of another name.
Speaker B: All right? So whether you agree with it or not, whatever.
Speaker A: Okay, I think I've made my position.
Speaker B: What do you think about the like. So with Google, do you think knowing that Kalshi and Polymarket are trying to legitimize themselves and they've made these deals and stuff like that, uh, do you think that that actually was a mistake? That Google had it.
Speaker A: No.
Speaker B: The Google News feed. Or do you think that was.
Speaker A: That was intentional?
Speaker B: For sure.
Speaker A: Based on what you've just said to m. Me. Like, my hot take is. Yeah. Because they're, they're. So what I'm going to. What I imagine is gambling platforms have probably a shitload of capital.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: A ton of money.
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: So, yeah, they're going to go to Google and they'll say, hey, we'll give you 10, 20%. Put it in the news feed.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: And Google's going, yeah, why not? Like, people are doing this anyway.
Speaker B: I'm sure there are sponsored results in Google news feeds. Yeah, there definitely are. And like, why not take.
Speaker A: It's another. It's. It's. It's an, It's a gambling ad.
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: And that's the difference. And I think what's interesting is. Well, because the news. The for you newsfeed is also, by the way, crap. Like, I find I get a lot of garbage in there. Um, you know, like, our dad gets down the rabbit hole with like, kind of weird stuff sometimes and like old people just get lost on the Internet. Um, it's. There's some of that happening too. And so I, I definitely think this was intentional based on what you said. Um, yeah, I think, I think what's
Speaker B: scary is that when you put it into a news feed, you're passing off like, gambling as credibility, as credibility.
Speaker A: Do you remember when advertorials first started?
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: And you and I had these conversations. Like, we emailed one of our old profs and stuff. It was like an ethics Prof. And we're like, is this like, ethical? Because most people. Like, this was before you saw a lot of, like, this is a sponsorship or sponsored ad or sponsored material. And it was just like somebody paid basically for an article that was like a listicle that had them at the top. Right. And it looked like it was real, but it wasn't. It was actually like an ad. It was an ad. Um, um. And so, uh. And I thought that that was kind of unethical.
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: I didn't. It didn't seem like that's clearly fooling people as to what's actually real. And it kind of comes to nowadays with, like, the. We talked about this a few weeks ago, but the AI Talking head videos.
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: Where it's like, that feels unethical if it's trying to pretend it's a person who's using something when it's not actually a person and they didn't actually use the thing.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: And so I think, like. Yeah, to me, this just kind of feels like a similar kind of. Well, we're on kind of, um, a misleading, uh, kind of vein here to the consumer.
Speaker B: Yeah, Yeah, I agree. Like, I think that their Google was right to pull it out. I think that you're right that they did stick it in there just to sort of see what would happen. And I'm glad the outcry was loud enough that they decided to backtrack out. I am very concerned that other news outlets are starting to partner with as well.
Speaker A: Like, I get that we were in a capitalist system, but, like, why gambling? Like, like, it just seems.
Speaker B: Well, I think the really scary part is that it's not like gambling on sports. It's like gambling on real life. Yeah.
Speaker A: And, like, which will change behavior.
Speaker B: That example of, like, the odds of a nuclear weapon going off in the next year. Like, uh, this is not. This is bad. Bad.
Speaker A: Because the reason. Yeah. Because people will profit off negative outcomes.
Speaker B: Yeah. Like, well, no, there's going to be somebody in there who's going to be motivated because they placed a huge bet to somehow figure out a way to
Speaker A: convince Trump to have a nuclear bomb
Speaker B: to do something awful, you know? Yeah.
Speaker A: Or like test a nuclear bomb thing, you know, which is, like, absurd anyway. But it, like, yeah, I. I'm totally with you. It. It just feels super messed up. I also wonder if, like, this has a weird. I don't know, maybe I'm thinking going too deep on this. But it's a way to really bias behavior. Right. So then what if it's like, the odds that Dave's car gets stolen?
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: You know, like, I don't know, like, where does this, like, kind of end if it's real life?
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: It feels to me like it's pretty messed up.
Speaker B: Yeah. I would. You ever want to run? I, uh. I don't know how people think of some of these business ideas. Like, I'm. Maybe I'm just too basic.
Speaker A: I would never do that.
Speaker B: Like, I would never think of saying, hey, we're going to start a company that you just bet on. Any random thing. And yeah, you know, for a while
Speaker A: we were going to like, we, we toyed with what we were going to call the book. We're going to call like the Honest Startup Startup and stuff like that. And I think it's because like we have and not be like look at us. But I, and I think the mo. Most people are like us for what it's worth. But there's like a certain moral uh, footing under whatever it is we're doing. We believe in what we're doing and that thing is generally good for people and provides value and it's so good they're willing to pay for it. That's like, is the crux of it. There are other people who though, I think perceive like going to market as like, how do I fool people into opening their wallet by accident?
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: How do I get like, how do I can like it's a shitty product, but it's, I can probably bamboozle enough people to give me money or it's something that manipulates people or it's something that makes people addicted to it. Gambling is an addiction as well as another part of this is that I think it's also very complicated. Like this is not like any uh, other kind of product. This is in the same category to me as alcohol, same category as tobacco, same. Like I always find it weird. I, like, I know why governments do this, but I find it weird that governments have lottery programs because ah, uh, I mean it's, some people call them attacks on the stupid. And like I understand why. Because your odds of winning the lottery are so insanely low that it doesn't, it's not, it's never a good idea ever. And even if you buy a lot of tickets, like it doesn't, you buy 10 tickets, doesn't fucking matter. You're not going to win anything or not enough. You'll lose. You net lose. And I always find it interesting the government's like running that vice. Yeah, to some extent.
Speaker B: So uh, let me pivot a bit of a question here for you. So I'm not real clear. I, I, I'm, how does the business model work for a poly market or a cow? She. So if you have, will the Strait of Hormuz be reopened this week or something like that? A question out there. Okay. And uh, you know, it's a, it's a yes or no kind of answer to that. So I'm gonna bet a hundred dollars on yes, you're gonna bet a hundred dollars on no. Okay, there's 200 in the pot. Okay. Uh-huh. Does Kelsey just take 20 of that off the top? And then. So the net proceeds is like, if. If I'm right, I would get like 160 bucks, right? Yeah.
Speaker A: But nobody else. There's also one of those outcomes is more likely than the other. And if you pick the unlikely outcome and it hits, then you make more too. Like, there's a page.
Speaker B: There's like an odds pay.
Speaker A: A multiple factor, too. Yeah, yeah. Like, you know, so this is also how sports has changed, but it shows
Speaker B: how terrible I would be at gambling because I know nothing.
Speaker A: Yeah. I don't quite know how this works, but if you look at. And there's like, parlays and there's all these other things you can do. Early payouts, like, all these.
Speaker B: There's.
Speaker A: It's a well thought out engineered, uh, economically manipulative system. But, um, if you look at, um, like a sports team is playing another sports team, one team has the plus. Like plus 200. The other team is like minus 250. Um, the team that's the underdog is the minus.
Speaker B: Right.
Speaker A: And I think the. The payout is something to do with that. That number. Like, it's a multiple or it's a modifier. So there's.
Speaker B: There's some sort of, like, balancing going.
Speaker A: So even if you win picking. If you win picking the favorite.
Speaker B: Yeah. You don't make that much versus picking the underdog.
Speaker A: It's like a straight double.
Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker A: Or a straight trip.
Speaker B: So how do you. How do you have. So how do they come up with odds on something like opening the Straight of Hormuz?
Speaker A: Is it. Is it crowdsourced odds or are they picking?
Speaker B: I have no idea.
Speaker A: I think it's crowdsourced.
Speaker B: Okay. So it's just like what people think.
Speaker A: What people think based on whatever. It's like the. It's just the. The movement of the ocean, you know, like. Cool. I don't think they know how. I don't think the platform knows anything.
Speaker B: Yeah. So, like, from a business perspective, probably
Speaker A: pays out the most versus others.
Speaker B: I just find this so absurd that this is like an actual business. And you're right. Like, how do we.
Speaker A: It's gambling. Gambling addictive. It's like, it is game. It's a casino. It's a casino. Think of it as a casino. And then you're like, okay, I get the business model.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: And people are betting with bad odds, spending a lot of money and losing a lot for the chance to occasionally win.
Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's.
Speaker A: Maybe it's a form of entertainment. Like the thing is too. I also get that some people, like I don't mind, like I go to Vegas, um, I'll take 50 to 100 bucks with me to a uh, blackjack table or to roulette and just have a good time, get some free drinks, whatever. Like that's cool. I, I think that's fine. People should be able to do that. But I think. Yeah, you're way outside that. Like we're betting on cards. Okay. We're not betting on nuclear devices or, or, or, or, or international conflict.
Speaker B: Yeah. So going back to your comment about like the addictive qualities of this, like. So I'm a bit of a news junkie and I, I watch obviously uh, you watch Canadian news, but I watch u. S news and it's, it's clear that they're like uh. I, I've definitely noticed on CNN they'll start bringing up some of the odds, uh, on polymarket and things as part of like, kind of like an indicator of like what people think is going to happen. Um, but clearly that's being done to normalize it. Whereas north of the border here I don't see any of that. I don't.
Speaker A: They, they very rarely might not be legal.
Speaker B: And that maybe you're right, maybe that is why is because it is not legal on this side of the border to do that sort of stuff where as it is.
Speaker A: Well, think how absurd that is.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: That's crazy.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Why also why does it matter? Like why do I need to know the poly market odds of whether or not the straight opens? It doesn't affect whether or not the straight opens. It doesn't affect. Is it any balls?
Speaker B: Is it like, hey, people will watch our news program more often if they can follow the it's addiction. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker A: So yes, people watch more sports.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Uh, when there's betting. That's why sports is so into betting. People watch more news if there's betting. I bet.
Speaker B: No, it's interesting. You have a bit of background in the old news business from your days that queens the queen's journal. Yeah, yeah. But you remember how. Okay. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker A: We made dozens of dollars there.
Speaker B: The, the point I'm trying to make with that though is that you were on the business side, uh, and, and there was the editorial side and the uh, the, the, the two never crossed. Right.
Speaker A: Like, you know what this is, is I. Well no, they do cross and it's a source of tension. It just as often like uh, business had no influence over editorial content.
Speaker B: Okay.
Speaker A: That's a little bit different. But, um, I think that, um. I just don't. It's a totally different animal in my mind. And I think that what. What this points to me. Let me just clarify my thoughts. What this points to me is that news is, um, dying.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Um, traditional broadcast news is struggling. They're looking for ways to bring eyeballs back, and they're willing to do almost anything.
Speaker B: Like, they want to bring eyeballs back, but they also want to bring revenue back. They want that eyeballs are revenue, though,
Speaker A: because then they turn around and they can say to advertisers, we have this many more viewers. Our viewing rate is going up. Or I think it's both. Like, we're bringing back new audience. Both for sure.
Speaker B: Poly Market's paying them for sure. And they're bringing eyeballs. So for them, it's like a double win. For sure. Yeah.
Speaker A: But, uh. But, uh, it speaks to me more as, like, a desperation play.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Because, like, I don't even get my. I don't go. I don't watch cnn. I don't watch news. The only time I watch CNN is when the war breaks out or when the big thing's about to happen.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: And I'll put it on for a little bit, but then sometimes I just go to Twitter or whatever and I just like, look, and I'm like, okay, here's like, videos from, like, on the ground. That's the thing. Uh, the only thing I like about X is you can get, like, video content that's, like, happening at the place in real. Almost in real time. Oh, cool. I think that's really cool. But outside of that, like, I like those platforms. I hate X otherwise. But I think that the dumb, like, the broadcast news thing is on its way out or struggling as boomers get older and pass away.
Speaker B: Yeah.
Speaker A: Yeah.
Speaker B: I think just straight up. Yeah. So cool. So anyways, well, I'm not going to be diving into the, you know, uh.
Speaker A: What do you think the over under is on? How much longer there is in this episode? I put it 30, uh, seconds.
Speaker B: 30 seconds.
Speaker A: 30 seconds. Hang on. I'll get. Let me just place a quick bet and then. And then I'll make sure it lands at 31, baby. And that is Poly Market. All right.
Speaker B: Great way to finish it. Yeah.
Speaker A: All right, catch you next week, folks. See ya.
Speaker B: A start it up, let's get it rolling Big ideas, money folding Hustle smart dream so wide Turn that grind into a joyride Ha.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
Optimistic On AI, Calm About Yields - But Own Land - Thomas PeterffyThe Master Investor Podcast with Wilfred Frost · on Kalshi84 / 100
Why the Godfather of Prediction Markets Thinks Insider Trading Should Be EncouragedThe Future of Money · on Prediction markets84 / 100
Trusted news in the age of AI: How hedge funds find signal in the noiseHedge Fund Huddle · on Dow Jones76 / 100
E297 - Peter HammonBusiness of Betting Podcast · on Kalshi75 / 100
1kx - Lasse Clausen (Episode #62)Scenius Studio · on Polymarket70 / 100
Weekly Roundup 06/26/26 (Quantum EOs, STRC's selloff, more MSTR) (EP.727)On The Brink with Castle Island · on Polymarket70 / 100
Can You Biohack Your Way to Immortality?35 / 100
AI Just Became the World's Best Hacker
Chris's Stealth Project Revealed: PurePrep
Dave's Stealth Project Revealed
Your AI Model Just Became Illegal