Nobel Peace Prize 2025: María Corina Machado
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
nobelprize.orgOtherstoryHigh profile
heatedmixed
Debate
85/100
Nobel Peace PrizeMaría Corina MachadoVenezuela PoliticsDonald Trump
Key topics
Nobel Peace Prize
María Corina Machado
Venezuela Politics
Donald Trump
The Nobel Peace Prize 2025 was awarded to María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan opposition leader, sparking controversy and discussion on the prize's politics and implications for Venezuela and global politics.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
7m
Peak period
130
0-12h
Avg / period
20
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 10, 2025 at 5:03 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 10, 2025 at 5:10 AM EDT
7m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
130 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 14, 2025 at 5:12 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45536700Type: storyLast synced: 11/22/2025, 11:47:55 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
https://x.com/polymarket/status/1976434242386317640
Someone without any history whatsoever put 70k on her 5 hours before the announcement
https://x.com/polywhalewatch/status/1976499384373121488
Trump was never above 5-10% and out of nowhere she was the winner (see the 1 day market view) https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2025?t...
Other than the fact that polymarket is legally not a stock market, what really is the difference between insider trading on a stock market vs insider trading on polymarket? Does anyone have a good argument for why one should be illegal while the other is legal?
However, I agree that they might get rules against this. But not to benefit the market, just because people think this would be proper. Social desirability bias is strong.
This is similar to the way all football teams benefit from fair referees and even matches, even if sometimes it means they lose.
Also: the point of an exchange is to make money. Different types of exchanges have different fee structures, but generally their profit is a function of volume, so there primary objective is to attract volume. Since every trade / bet requires two participants, they need to balance the needs of both participants to make it work. Price discovery is a positive side effect of efficient and fair markets, which is why as a society we like them and encourage them, but it isn't what they are trying to achieve except inasmuch as it encourages participation.
In the US, there's no general rule that protects you against trading against someone with insider information. Mostly what's forbidden is an employee X of company Y trading on her own account; but if X acts on behalf of Y, they can go crazy.
For you on the other side of the trade, it doesn't really matter whether you sell your Standard Oil stock to someone officially acting on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway who knows that next week Warren Buffett will announce that they are going to buy Standard Oil, or whether you are selling your stock to someone who has the same information, but is not officially authorised by Berkshire Hathaway.
Yet, people still trade in the stock market just fine.
I would suggest as a retail investor you shouldn't buy individual stocks anyway: just buy an index fund.
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and people still traded them.
In any case, your arguments suggest that exchanges should be able to decide whether they want to allow insider trading, and companies should be allowed to decide which exchange they want to list at (so they can indirectly decide whether to allow insider trading). No need for a blanket one-size-fits-none rule.
Other than a vague sense of "fairness", can you articulate why insider trading should be illegal?
(I'm not saying you're wrong, btw. People aren't always rational.)
Isn't that the entire point of the prediction market model? You derive the wisdom of the crowd by enabling smarter people who make better educated guesses as predictions (from the same access to information as others) to win out over time. They are incentivized to do this financially, by winning bets.
If markets just becomes "first person to cheat takes all", then there's no incentive to NOT cheat. So you drive away the people who power the prediction market in the absence of information. Over time, this means that the prediction market is just random noise until a leaker publishes news. At that point, you might as well as just skip the middleman and just make a website "LeakNews" where you can directly offer bounties that goes towards a reward paid out to a leaker for news you are interested in.
Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses. The only purpose of a prediction market is to get accurate predictions. Insider information makes the predictions more accurate. Unlike the stock market, we don't need to encourage public participation in prediction markets. In fact we might want to discourage it because it's essentially gambling. Therefore, we should definitely not outlaw insider trading in prediction markets.
If you discourage public participation in prediction markets "oh I will just lose my money to an insider a few hours or days before the final result, so why bother", then the end result is that nobody participates until an insider makes a big bet. Then the market is worthless until the insiders jump in. Is that really what prediction market advocates want?
The other point is that:
> Prediction markets don't provide capital for productive businesses
Is not true. There's more than just capital in terms of cash. There's human capital (employees), brand value... and importantly, information. Which is what prediction markets intend to do in the future: become an information value source for productive businesses.
Money isn't the only unit of value.
Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
> Allowing insider trading seems like a nearsighted way to increase volume for prediction markets, at the cost of long term value.
It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information). Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
That's not true. As mentioned in this thread, the UK has laws in general against this (for betting). The USA also already has laws against specifically insider financial disclosures (Regulation FD) for corporations, that also applies to betting on prediction markets (Dirks vs SEC ruling in the general case). I'm not sure if Regulation FD applies to Nobel prizes, though, as that's not regulated by the SEC, and I'm not sure if the USA has general laws on illegal betting. But therefore, I do not think you can claim that "there is no prohibition on insider trading", as that's already clearly mostly illegal and thus already priced in for the public participation in prediction markets.
> It's exactly the opposite. Banning insider trading in prediction markets would be a nearsighted way to increase volume (by encouraging more public participation) at the cost of long term value (accuracy, because insiders have the accurate information).
Again, the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources, so the status quo is already what I propose; you don't see insiders trade on predictions like "would OpenAI release GPT-5 in 2025" as that's against the law.
> Prediction markets can only be an "information value source" to the extent that they are accurate.
This is also not true. Bayes Theorem! The information does not need to be fully accurate, just more accurate, enough to update from P(A) to P(A|B) given P(B), where P(B) is the prediction market's price on a certain prediction! That means an inaccurate prediction market can still inform your knowledge updates, if you can derive information from it.
I didn't say an inaccurate prediction market is completely worthless. But it is self-evident that an accurate prediction market is a lot more valuable than an inaccurate one.
> the current laws already ban insider trading from corporate sources
Not only are most markets not related to corporations including the most important ones, I don't believe that insiders are actually that discouraged from trading even on corporate markets, and more importantly I don't believe the public believes insiders are prevented from trading. Everyone on Polymarket knows it's the wild west, and yet people still trade plenty.
Yeah, you're just describing humans behaving irrationally then. That's clearly not rational behavior (which to be fair, is totally expected for humans), which means that even if it's descriptive of the current markets now, that's not actually ideal.
Why?
Is someone forcing you to place bets at gunpoint?
(And, yes, there are good arguments in favour of allowing insider trading in all markets, and a few against.)
Because some information affects the stock market. So Regulation FD already applies, for financial news.
> Even if we ban on this one too
The UK already banned this, see other comment above in this thread.
> insideinformationverywelcomemarket
You might as well as cut out the middleman, don't call it a "market" anymore, and just call it "crowdfunded-will-pay-reward-for-insider-information-website". Or, basically a crowdfunded TMZ. TMZ will pay thousands of dollars for non-financial info on celebs and then publish that news. That that point, you're just describing a slightly classier crowdfunded TMZ.
Sure, but that has everything to do with what information you are allowed to make public, not with whether you should be allowed to bet on arbitrary other markets.
> You might as well as cut out the middleman, don't call it a "market" anymore, and just call it "crowdfunded-will-pay-reward-for-insider-information-website". [...]
The commodities markets in the US used to have no prohibition on insider trading until fairly recently. They still called it a market.
Prediction-market contracts are either CFTC or SEC territory. Many "event contracts" are regulated as swaps (CFTC). If a contract references a single security/issuer, then it falls under security-based swap rules (SEC). Either way, trading them with MNPI risks liability under the applicable anti-fraud rules. (CFTC Rule 180.1 is guided by SEC 10b-5 case law on misappropriation.)
The CFTC uses the misappropriation theory: trading while breaching a duty to keep information confidential is prohibited, even if you never "tip" anyone. They’ve brought cases on this theory. CFTC enforcement and guidance explicitly cite misappropriation cases (Ruggles 2016, Motazedi 2015, EOX, etc) as "insider trading" analogs for non stock trading.
> They still called it a market.
I'm saying you can pivot your hypothetical company to a website-that-pays-for-news-like-TMZ. Last time I checked, they don't call TMZ a market.
Until fairly recently, there was no rule against insider trading in commodities in the US, and the market worked just fine.
My point in my earlier comment was that your question about 'why?' seemed a bit weird. You can look up the 'why?' relatively easily, even if you don't find it convincing.
"The investigation, initiated in June 2024, focused on individuals suspected of using confidential information - specifically advance knowledge of the proposed election date - to gain an unfair advantage in betting markets. Such actions constitute an offence of cheating under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, a criminal offence."
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news/article/gambling-...
Depends on jurisdiction.
I don't care either way but for the sake of argument:
Stock market is something you can't avoid (ignoring hermits), so an insider trade can ruin your pension fund or other financial wellbeing with you having no way to opt out of the risk, so the government protects you. (This is good!)
Polymarket is more like a bet between friends. You don't have to play but if you do understand it's unregulated and someone can cheat.
A prediction market, on the other hand, aims to provide the best possible probabilities on events (arguably), and "insider trading" helps that purpose.
You think maybe that might not be on the straight and narrow?
Maybe we should get people to bet on it! Gamblers routinely show that they have a strong understanding of the world, right? What? No I don't have a problem. Hey do you have a few dollars I can borrow?
It’s pretty understandable for Mrs. Corina to take whatever support she gets internationally.
https://x.com/VenteVenezuela/status/1286346531591852036
Providing her with this award while Trump's naval battle groups stand ready to attack Venezuela isnt helping arrest the collapse of the west's moral authority.
I must confess I am no Venezuelan political expert, and it always gives me pause whether the economic siege that has been laid against Venezuela with the sanctions is about democracy, or about access to unrestricted markets (a la United Fruit Company — now Chiquita — and Standard Fruit Company — now Dole plc).
[0]: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKU-8MCO10P/
(exception maybe Costa Rica?)
To be clear, Venezuela is long past the "popular socialism" phase and decayed into the "strongman holding on" phase.
A little further research and she sounds like Mrs orangutan.
She supports the sanctions against Venezuela. I wonder what her views are on US-backed military regime-change and blowing-up random Venezuelan boats.
i’m not sure if you’ve seen how many people have lost their jobs for saying truths about kurk or how many people are losing jobs, scholarships, visas, education etc for saying things about a certain regime, but it’s happening, for real. they’re actively pushing to force people to turn over their social media accounts for review.
we can’t blame this poster for vagueposting here. i often pushback against vagueposting but in today’s climate we cant blame people for taking their personal safety seriously when it comes to vocalizing their criticisms.
I'm reminded of the (apocryphal?) Russian protestor arrested for holding a blank piece of paper.
In Singapore someone was charged for holding up a piece of cardboard with a smiley face drawn on it: https://www.economist.com/asia/2020/11/26/public-order-in-si...
That you think anything else is copium of Russian quality. That you think that criticizing Trump would get you fired is absurd. You seriously need to work on yourself. You aren't getting push back for "telling the truth" (which is just repeating questionable things from journalists). You are getting push back for being a terrible human being. So terrible in fact that people are leaving the Dems just because they don't want to be associated with them, not for any policy or something the Reps did.
PS None of this would have hurt the Democratic Party if it wasn't for how you reacted to his death. It was truly the worst thing I have seen in US politics in my lifetime.
Another reason I don't just say it sometimes is to avoid trolling by fans of whatever or whoever I criticized.
Fuck Donald J. Trump, worst President of the Untied States in history.
(To be clear, I don't think Trump should get one; and Obama's win was really weird. But, hey, if Kissinger can get one..)
If there's one job in the world where I'd wait until someone's well out of office before judging their impact on peace, it's the US presidency.
I'm in a circle of people who lean pretty damn far left and even at the time, the only reactions I heard were "huh, what?"
Sure, but if you want your prize to have an impact, you sometimes have to hand it out to hopefuls?
To me, it seemed oddly aspirational, but maybe that's more often the case with the peace prize, too.
Also worth noting that the language in the press release [1] and facts page [2] makes it all sound like it was for things already achieved (although maybe that's at odds with "Inspires Hope for a Better Future"), and I'm skeptical of looking at year 1 achievements the job with arguably the most destructive power in the world.
It's not a hill I'd fight, let alone die, on, though. :)
1- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ 2- https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/facts/
But the Nobel price explicitly tries to avoid that; hindsight is always gonna be better.
Meanwhile for Trump... I'm pretty certain he wants it because a clever, charismatic, eloquent and beloved Black man got it...
Price for Obama was probably miss-step but at least he was not desperately begging for it like Trump does.
Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
The deal would likely take months for the world to see if it's successful. He can get nominated next year if he keeps his own house peaceful too, else he should forget about a rational nomination + award of the Prize.
If there's no way for you to change your stance based on any outcome, then it's pointless to say.
Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.
> Also: the day Trump shows genuine selfless happiness for another's accomplishments, there won't be enough boots for me to eat.
Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
As have they? We have many tests for determining whether or not a given person's senses are or not intact.
> Same, but it's also true for anyone else.
Note I said show. If you happen to live in a world where you feel you've been devoid of such empathy then I feel for you, but such an environment of narcissism is hardly representative.
And Trump's regime is openly facist. No other kind of regime would call terrorists those who present themselves as antifacists.
Ironically, trump may win the peace prize next year for ending a war he created. If indeed, against the odds, he has ended this war.
What war did Trump create that you claim he's ending?
Because as far as I know, Israel's war on Gaza started before his term, and if the peace deal holds, Trump will be almost singlehandedly responsible for ending it.
If that's not worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, I truly don't know what else is.
He allowed Israel to break the last ceasefire immediately after the first phase of prisoner exchange was over, and to subsequently act with more brutality than even before. He started that chapter himself, whether through psychopatic indifference, narcisstic business fantasy of a future riviera with his name, or being a completely weak man who couldn't say no. Whatever the reason, he started the next 7 months of slaughter.
For bystanders, be aware that there is a lot of money to be made by defending Israel. Some people will take that money. Just a few citations below:
- Certain social media influencers being paid up to $7000 per post [1]
- Israel boosts propaganda funding by $150m to sway global opinion against genocide [2] [3]
- "[...] a firm called Bridges Partners LLC has been hired to manage an influencer network under a project code-named the “Esther Project.” " [4]
[1] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-influencers-netanya...
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/isr...
[3] https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-spent-m...
[4] https://www.jta.org/2025/09/30/united-states/israels-secret-...
Before Israel's invasion, a minority supported Hamas' actions. Now, it will be very hard to find peace during the generational legacy of Israel's violence.
This is why overwhelming violence cannot lead to peace. Israel was justified in defending itself, but proportionality was necessary. As an alternative, I think Mossad have show themselves capable of disabling Hamas without heavy civlian casualties.
It really didn’t help when they gave Obama the prize. Even he was embarrassed by it.
I think trump genuinely deserves the prize if peace in the Middle East achieved. However, I think it’s far more likely he’s being played for a fool by Israel as per Russia.
Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars, to his credit.
Norway is no doubt now bracing itself for tariffs or other retaliation. Hopefully they can dangle next year’s prize as worth waiting for.
Just going to drop this here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQYFVEka3fA&pp=ygUYc2FyY2FzbWl...
I don't think that's a fair assessment. I believe Russia is primarily to blame, on account of it repeatedly invading Ukraine.
I believe NATO also encouraged it.
I don't recall Trump ordering American troops to invade Ukraine. Don't see how you're negating my point?
(fwiw, I am not a Trump supporter at all, I just try to see both sides and not hate trump because "he's the other team" - politics is not football)
I had to do a double-take here - where exactly in the video is Ukraine featured?
> I don't recall Trump ordering American troops to invade Ukraine. Don't see how you're negating my point?
The entire premise of the video I linked is that Trump has no qualms having the US involved in military action, it befuddles me that you somehow seemed to missed this entirely.
> (fwiw, I am not a Trump supporter at all, I just try to see both sides and not hate trump because "he's the other team" - politics is not football)
Hate has nothing to do with it, you made a statement regarding his stance on foreign wars, I provided a source which I believe contextualizes that statement. You're welcome to disagree with the source or its contents or whatever, but throwing out pretty blatant red herrings and silly strawmen just looks silly.
What exactly is your point? Trump clearly has qualmsin involving the US. Example: he was responsible for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
And people say comedy is dead.
> What exactly is your point?
That Trump isn't as anti-war as he's made out to be
> Example: he was responsible for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Probably doesn't matter to you that Biden was president when that occurred? [0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_U.S._troop_w...
Biden was indeed president when America withdrew. Obviously. Unsure if you’re trolling. I guess so.
Trump set up the withdrawal during his presidency. Biden went through with Trump’s plan.
So, yes, it was trump who was responsible for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.
So they were both responsible - my (non-trolling) point.
> So, yes, it was trump who was responsible for the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Also of interest is how he (trump) decided it should be done, and what ramifications this would have for how badly it would go. This is also covered in the video ;)
The current ceasefire proposal doesn't address the wider struggle for liberation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and as such it cannot be anything more than a temporary stop to a 2-year genocide against them. Settlements are still being built and fences around Palestinian houses are still being erected in the West Bank. Ethnic Cleansing continues. There is no peace until Israel undergoes the same transformation that Apartheid South Africa did when it turned into just South Africa (which requires efforts from the entire world to boycott it).
Settlements are continuing in the West Bank, which are widely regarded as illegal by the international community.
There is little doubt amongst international experts that what Israel has done is genocide, and the parallels with South Africa are justified.
I'm hopeful that the genocide won't continue. However, I also think it's unlikely that peace will be achieved. Some form of violence or occupation is more likely, driven by Netanyahu's political interests.
I'm not sure this is what Al Nobel has in mind.
- Obama was embassed by the peace prize. You can read this in his memoir, in his own words.
- If peace is achieved in the Middle East, it will be the greatest peace negotiation since the end of WW2. I'm unsure how anyone can dispute that.
- Netanyahu has a vested interested in prolonging war and crisis, as his own political survival is at stake. Context if anyone is not aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_p... - this makes it very unlikely the 20 point plan will be completed.
- Russia has indeed played Trump for a fool. Putin has bought plenty of time, they now have the upper hand in drone and missile attacks and Ukraine has lost the financial support of America. In return, Putin has conceded absolutely nothing.
- Trump does genuinely seem to want to avoid foreign wars. Good examples are his chastisement of Israel for breaking the earlier ceasefire, and its bombing of Qatar. He also did instigate negotiations with Russia, although he failed. His interventions in other conflicts are also genuine.
- Norway was reported to be bracing itself for retaliation https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-09/norway-on...
I am really unsure why I'm being downvoted here.
Full disclosure: I am not a supporter of Trump, at all. I am a close follower and wide reader around current affairs and politics.
oh, he absolutely 100% would
https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/1976601157041856756
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-finlands-stubb-expect...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_Pact
1- The Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by a committee of 5 Norwegians. Having Russia or Israel expressing support doesn't help, it's probably even counterproductive. Random endorsements on Twitter don't matter either..
2- The committee values international cooperation, not trade wars, isolationism, or cozying up to dictators.
3- They prize the defense of democracy, not attacks on it.
4- The cherry on the cake: Machado got the prize while he's been threatening war with Venezuela itself. It almost feels like a big f*ck off
Please. At least get the facts right.
It was not just Russia and Israel. It was also Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Gabon and Rwanda.
[1]: https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-call-with-the-rightfu...
[2]: https://x.com/MariaCorinaYA/status/1976642376119549990
Indeed. Juan Guaidó is yesterdays man.
According to the New York Times...
" She has expressed support for the use of force to depose the Maduro regime; one of her advisors told the New York Times that she has coordinated with the Trump administration and that she has a plan for the first hundred hours after his deposition"
Not sure what democratic mandate she has to be in charge post a foreign led military coup - though she is a graduate of the Yale World Fellows programme.
So rather than a big FU it would appear to be more likely to be an attempt to raise her profile to legitimise a US led coup.
2025 Venezuela opposition, 2023 Iranian opposition, 2022 Belarus, Russia opposition ( and +1 for Ukraine ), 2021 Russian opposition ( +philipines ).
If not influenced by the US - it would appear very much aligned.
In the last 5 years, only in 2024 - celebrating a Japanese who campaigns against nuclear weapons - would it appear not to be aligned.
1- He doesn't turn against her or try to undermine her (he certainly would otherwise)
2- He publicly supports her cause.
3- His attention stays on Venezuela .. I really doubt she wants a full-scale US intervention.
(oh wait, that's Denmark, but never mind, a certain president probably wouldn't know the difference; if some Fox News commentator said that Greenland belongs to Norway, he'd believe it).
Here is a related tangent:
>Norway walks back US Navy fuel supply boycott
https://www.bairdmaritime.com/security/naval/naval-ships/nor...
> I think it also becomes a real test of in-group loyalty to see who can outcompete in slavishness the other members of the circle, who are also competing to be slavish. That’s why you get these strange [phenomena] like Donald Trump’s physicians claiming that he’s the most physically vigorous president ever.
> Now, even when Donald Trump was younger, he was a big man, but he was never a great athlete. And now, as he approaches his 80th birthday, he’s obviously not physically fit.
> The fact is, you’re not just willing to tell a lie, but tell a lie that abases you, that makes you look foolish, that makes you look like you don’t care about yourself at all, that you only defer to the leader. That’s the real sign of loyalty. It’s flattery that is not meant to be believed but functions as a kind of system of in-group recognition.
To me, this is a perfect mirror to Chairman Mao (supposedly) swimming across the Yangtze River in his 70s at a pace faster than an Olympic champion of today.
There’s no meaning to any of it. It’s just propaganda and self-abasement for the purpose of loyalty competition to the leader. In fact, the more ludicrous, the better, because it means you’re willing to fully destroy any personal credibility you may have as a sacrifice to show loyalty.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/10/the-dav...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/trump-nobel-...
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/39336/us-attacks-venezue...
> This question will resolve as Yes if, before January 1, 2026, the United States carries out a military attack against Venezuela's territory or military forces.
Alright, we are into conspiracy theory territory now. But let me just say that these awards make me a bit nervous.
553 more comments available on Hacker News