It's only an ego bet if you don't care about money. Most people would significantly enjoy an extra hundred or thousand dollars. It's a big upside.

> If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

I think it's pretty clear in this case that's it's a genuine disagreement about the fate of the company.

> Finally betting with some random that I have no reason to think would make good on their side of the bet if I was to win. idk man that just seems like a really dumb idea. I don't understand why people think it makes them smart to think otherwise.

There are plenty of trustworthy arbiters/platforms available. For most people spending a couple hours looking into it is easily worth the money... if they're right.

> Secondly I think betting about facts is an incredibly foolish thing to do in general. If anyone offers you a bet about some fact, you are the sucker and you just haven't figured out how yet. Your best move is not to play.

Well, that sure sounds like a claim about how confident one should be about their understanding of reality. One most people disagree with, incidentally - do you own any equities?

Counterparty risk is a valid reason to avoid certain bets (or bet structures), but a totally separate objection from "betting is a weird thing that only weirdos do".