The Human Cost of a Burning Bet
Sylvie Andrews and her partner lost the new home they helped build when the Eaton Fire swept through Altadena, California, in January 2025. They lost a decade of sacrifices and the community they had created. “We put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into it,” Andrews said. “That’s what we lost in the fire.” The Eaton Fire, alongside the Palisades Fire, destroyed more than 16,000 structures. But while Andrews and thousands of Angelenos raced to evacuate, others saw a financial opportunity. Using Polymarket, the world’s largest prediction market, they placed bets on how the fires would grow, how long they would last, and how much they would destroy.
How Prediction Markets Work
Prediction markets are gambling platforms where people bet on event outcomes—elections, sports, weather, and more. Questions are framed in a “yes” or “no” format, with contract prices fluctuating between $0 and $1. A price of 50 cents on a “yes” contract indicates a 50% perceived chance. Market hosts charge fees on wagers. In January 2025, Polymarket listed 19 questions, preselected by its “markets team,” related to the Southern California wildfires. Examples included: How many acres will the Palisades Fire burn by Friday? Will the Palisades Fire reach Santa Monica by Sunday? When will the Palisades fire be 50 percent contained? Will the Palisades and Eaton fires be contained before February? According to Aeon Magazine, people bet $1.2 million on these queries.
The Moral and Ethical Dilemmas
Upon learning of the $1.2 million figure, Andrews said, “My first take is that it’s morally reprehensible. The fact that someone would feel OK doing that flabbergasts me.” Susan Sherman, who lost her childhood home in Pacific Palisades—owned by her parents since 1963—echoed the sentiment. She sold the empty lot months ago. “I look at (betting on the fires) as just being very crass and heartless,” Sherman said. As prediction markets grow and a new wildfire season begins, survivors and ethicists argue that such betting encourages callous thinking and dangerous behavior.
The Threat of Arson and Insider Trading
One major concern is arson. “That’s what has me nervous,” Sherman said. A bet could give someone the perverse incentive to start a fire or help one grow. Unlike hurricanes or floods, a fire can be manipulated in minutes by a single person. A US Forest Service spokesperson stated, “Systems that tie financial gain to wildfire outcomes risk encouraging misuse, including arson, and are not compatible with our mission.” Ann Skeet, senior director of leadership ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, warned, “Imagine what a bad actor might do. A market that might support that kind of activity, I think, is a dangerous market.” She also noted that firefighters or land managers with exclusive information could be tempted to bet, constituting insider trading. “When you start gambling on somebody’s potential death or harm, you’re really diminishing the value that you’re placing on human life,” Skeet added.
The Rise of Specialized Wildfire Prediction Markets
Betting on wildfire outcomes is no longer limited to general platforms. In 2026, ahead of a likely busy fire season, a new prediction market called Wyldfyre was launched, specifically focused on California fires. Its tagline: “You can’t predict wildfire. But you can trade on it.” High Country News could not determine the platform’s owner or its website’s IP address; the site is opaque with no contact information. Currently, Wyldfyre only allows simulated trading, but real-money betting is “coming soon.” The platform claims to be the first of its kind, pricing county and city wildfire risk in real time. “California burns. Every year. And it’s getting worse. The question isn’t if—it’s where and when,” the site reads. It includes hotspot data from NASA and the National Interagency Fire Center. Proponents argue that prediction markets generate useful crowdsourced intelligence. Wyldfyre frames itself as a public good: “Wyldfyre turns collective intelligence into better wildfire forecasting—one trade at a time.”
Official Responses and Rejection
Federal and state firefighting agencies have no interest in such data. A Forest Service spokesperson told High Country News, “We do not use information from prediction markets for wildfire forecasting… Our priority is protecting firefighters, communities, and public lands, and our fire analysts use validated science, proven predictive tools, and data from federal partners.” Cal Fire’s staff chief, Phillip SeLegue, confirmed, “Cal Fire does not use prediction-market-derived data… Our modeling is deterministic and physics‑based; it is not informed by markets.”
Regulatory Pushback
As prediction-market betting soars, politicians are trying to rein it in. Representatives from Utah and California introduced a federal bill in March 2025 that would prohibit betting “related to terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or illegal activity.” A California senator introduced a bill to prohibit contracts about “an individual’s death.” Meanwhile, Minnesota became the 27th state to outlaw hosting or advertising prediction markets (though not betting on them); the federal government promptly sued the state for overstepping its authority. None of these proposed restrictions explicitly include wildfire—at least not yet.
Andrews offers a simple hope: “If someone won money in gambling with our fate, I would hope that they might be ashamed of themselves, and take that money and donate it directly to fire survivors.”