Discover more from Steve Kirsch's newsletter
An opportunity to earn extraordinary monetary returns if you understand science
I'm looking at creating a side-pool for my ten $1M bet offers. You can earn returns of 10X or more if you bet on the winning side. I'd love to get your input on this idea.
I have created ten different $1M bet offers in order to resolve important issues where there is disagreement. The bets are things like:
Do viruses exist?
Is SARS-CoV-2 an actual virus or a computer generated sequence that everyone copies?
Was SARS-CoV-2 generated in a lab or in nature?
While these bets don’t definitively resolve issues, at a minimum they will make one side $1M richer and the other side $1M poorer. This will discourage people from making the same claims in the future. For example, if Sam Bailey loses $1M in a bet about virology existing, she’s less likely to keep making the same claim in the future. This is similar to the 100,000 Euro offer made by Stefan Lanka. It proves a point about who is confident in their beliefs. I see that since he lost on the merits in the lower court, Stefan Lanka has not subsequently extended a similar offer which is a tacit admission that he would lose. Did you notice that too? Money has a way of creating finality on an issue.
In order to make things very affordable, I’ve even lowered the minimum to $200K for these $1M bets. Below that, it doesn’t make financial sense since the judges, consultants, and legal fees take a big chunk out that.
$200K is pretty affordable. There are typically thousands of people on each side of the argument… A challenger just has to ask 1,000 people for $200 each.
I wanted to enable a side-pool where others can participate in the action as well. It is described in detail in the term sheet here.
You can get started with just $100
The nice thing is you can bet any amount between $100 to $10K. We may change these limits. See the term sheet for the current limits.
Once it is known:
who the parties are,
how much they have at risk (the main bet will be between $200K and $1M so you will know the parties are serious)
the definitive agreement that they negotiated on the terms of the bet
the names of the judges that were selected
I’ll ask for participation from the public. You can bet with me or against me.
The side bet ROI depends on the ratio of the sums bet on each side. So if a total of $100K is bet on side A and $10K is bet on side B, if A wins, the people betting on A get a 10% ROI. But if B wins, they make 10X their investment.
I designed it this way deliberately to smoke out people like Christine Massey.
For example, for a bet on “do viruses exist?,” I’d expect the ratio of Yes:No to be something like 100:1 or even more.
So now I can go to Christine and say, “So if you really think that viruses do not exist, then why aren’t you putting major money in the side pool… you can get 100X your investment when you win which, according to you, is a slam dunk?”
So I can avoid endless arguments about who is right. It instantly reveals the counterparty’s level of conviction in their stated beliefs.
That’s the whole point.
I make no money on the side fund. It’s all between the counterparties.
Why am I doing this? Is this a scam for me to make money?
Nope. It is to solve what I call the “Christine Massey problem” in an efficient manner.
Christine has a bunch of followers who she misleads into believing the virus doesn’t exist. And she thinks I’m a bad person and won’t talk to me.
So how do I almost instantly prove that:
And how can I punish her so that she doesn’t keep repeating the same thing over and over?
So I came up with this side-bet system.
Now I can simply tell Christine (and her followers), “So if I’m wrong, why aren’t you putting $10,000 in the betting pool against me?”
There is simply no way to explain that if she really believes what she says.
It exposes her as being disingenuous. And if she makes the bet and loses, not only does she lose face, she is also financially punished.
It saves time and is an objective resolution. It avoids conflict too: Christine never has to talk to me.
It also avoid excuses. There are no excuses for not placing a bet where you can get 100X return on your investment.
As soon as you put dollars at risk, the trolls back off. It’s the perfect troll identifier / lie detector.
Without the monetary challenge, the debate and name calling goes on and on and on….never ending. This is the current state.
Once you put a monetary component to it, you very quickly can see who is lying to you and who is likely telling the truth. And when the bet is finally judged, you get closer to the truth.
So money is simply the most efficient way to force resolution of a question and quantify the conviction of the person making the argument. And it also punishes people who misrepresent the facts.
I haven’t found a better way to quantify conviction in a belief, but if you have a better way, I’m all ears!
And this is why the side pool is constructed as it is… it gives people like Christine the ability to earn 10X or 100X her money so if she isn’t taking the bet, it is obvious she doesn’t believe what she says…. at all.
In short, using money, we can quickly identify the truth teller: they are the ones who are anxious to participate and wager large sums.
And it worked!
Christine tacitly admitted she read this article because she posted on it and couldn’t come up with any reason for not taking one of my offers (bet or side-pool). Instead, more ad hominem attacks:
If Christine were on the level, she’s have suggested that I fix certain things so she could accept the bet and win a lot of money because she’s right. She did none of that. She went instantly for the ad hominem attack route which is what people do when they cannot win on the facts.
Some more examples
The bets and side bets system can simply finding truth in so many cases.
For example, when Kristian Andersen published his papers on the wet market origin theory, I suggested he bet against me or make a sidepool bet and make a huge amount of money with no work. He ignored me. Strange. Most people when given the opportunity to make an easy $1M, jump at the chance.
The other thing you quickly find is that everyone seems to agree with me because there is no money being bet against me! It’s all being bet agreeing with me. The numbers aren’t real until we have our first contest, but then you will see just how lopsided the betting is. I guess I’m not a misinformation spreader. Using money is a powerful tool to expose who is lying to you, isn’t it?
Another thing the side-pool does show it is isn’t rigged; this will happen when there are bets on both sides. I don’t have to argue with anyone; the proof will be in plain sight.
Some of my bets are actually AGAINST conventional thinking like my vaccine is unsafe and my lab leak views. So I’m clearly at a disadvantage since judges are more mainstream biased. If I were trying to get “an edge” on winning, I’d only bet with the mainstream views. So much for accusations that I’m only picking bets where I would have an unfair advantage.
I hope this clarifies the utility of the bets and the side-pool.
Use of crypto / smart contracts
This would make a perfect smart contract application in Solana. People can send in funds to the contract, the judges digitally sign their judgement, the funds get sent out instantly to the accounts they came from.
How cool is that?
You can register here your NON-BINDING side bet here on the issues. It will be interesting to see where people end up on these issues. There is no risk to register; it just tells me where to focus my time. You’ll be contacted later for a commitment.
It’s helpful to register your interest for two reasons:
It shows that people who are on the CORRECT side of the issue can get $200K in backing or more instantly
It shows that people who are on the wrong side of the issue will struggle to get any backing. So it ends the debate even before it begins!
If there is sufficient dollar interest on both sides of an issue, we will try to prioritize the question with the most interest
See this list of people who have registered a side bet. Please participate so we can demonstrate 1 and 2. Your commitments are not binding, but please no gaming. That doesn’t benefit anyone.