Before a single ballot is cast in Bangladesh’s 13th parliamentary election, the result has already been priced, traded and argued over – using dollars, crypto and probability charts.
Away from rallies, slogans and polling centres, a parallel election is unfolding online.
On global prediction markets, Bangladesh’s political future is being treated less like a civic choice and more like a financial instrument, where parties rise and fall not on votes, but on confidence, speculation and risk appetite.
On these platforms, democracy behaves like a market. Odds replace opinion polls, traders replace voters, and politics becomes something you can buy into – or sell off – at the click of a button.
In these digital marketplaces, politics has become speculation. Votes are converted into odds, parties into price charts, and democracy into something that can be bought or sold for a few cents – or thousands of dollars.
On one such platform, Polymarket, nearly $1 million has already been wagered on the outcome of Bangladesh’s election. Traders buy “Yes” or “No” contracts on whether a particular party will win, with prices shifting in real time as confidence rises, rumours spread, or narratives collapse.
At its peak, at 6:00am on February 4, the market priced a victory for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) at an overwhelming 94%, while rival parties faded into single digits or statistical irrelevance.
By 5:00pm on Tuesday, February 10, eight parties were still technically in the race, but the hierarchy remained clear: BNP led at 86%, up 18 percentage points from when betting began on December 17, 2025, steadily consolidating its dominance.
Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, meanwhile, stood at 14%, down five points over the same period, continuing a gradual slide as trading volume clustered around the frontrunner.
Politics as a price play
The comment section on Polymarket reads less like a forum for political forecasting and more like a hybrid of a trading desk and a political street rally. Users discuss “entry points,” “volatility,” and “scalping opportunities” with the same language used in crypto or stock markets.
Many openly concede that Jamaat-e-Islami is unlikely to win, yet treat it not as a political force but as a speculative instrument. “Jamaat is unlikely to win, but this could be your best opportunity to scalp this,” one bettor wrote – framing the election as a short-term price play rather than a democratic choice.
Others focus on timing rather than outcomes. One user predicted Jamaat’s odds would fall further on election day and advised waiting to buy at a lower price. Another spoke of holding out for a “10x” return. The vocabulary is unmistakably financial, even when the subject is the future government of a country of 170 million people.
Running parallel to this market logic is a stream of raw political emotion. Supporters post declarations such as, “This kind of opportunity may not come again – long live Jamaat!” Opponents reply with insults, threats and crude slurs. Religious slogans, nationalist rhetoric and trading banter coexist uneasily in the same thread, often aimed at fellow traders rather than voters.
Doubts about the odds
Not everyone trusts the market. Several users question whether the prices reflect electoral reality or are being distorted by foreign traders, algorithms or online echo chambers.
One commenter claimed overseas bettors and AI-driven models were blindly inflating BNP’s odds, while others warned that YouTube comments, X trends and urban online enthusiasm rarely capture rural voting behaviour. As one trader cautioned, social media sentiment should not be mistaken for ground-level political dynamics.
These doubts highlight a central tension in prediction markets: whether they aggregate collective wisdom or simply amplify dominant narratives, rumours and herd behaviour.
A global phenomenon, with local implications
Betting on elections is not new. In 19th-century Britain and the United States, bookmakers openly accepted wagers on parliamentary and presidential races, and newspapers regularly published odds as a barometer of public mood.
In the UK today, regulated betting exchanges routinely offer odds on general elections, leadership contests and referendums.
During the 2020 US presidential election, prediction markets were closely watched for reacting faster than traditional polls, sometimes adjusting within minutes to breaking news.
What makes the Bangladeshi case distinct is the context. Online prediction markets are borderless, anonymous and often crypto-based, placing them beyond the reach of national regulators – especially in countries where politics is polarised and information is tightly managed.
For participants, that distance offers freedom. For observers, it raises uncomfortable questions. Are these markets revealing genuine expectations, or are they reinforcing cynicism by treating democratic outcomes as foregone conclusions? Do they inform public understanding or quietly drain politics of meaning by turning it into a tradable asset?
Ballots, not bets
On February 12, Bangladesh’s future will ultimately be decided by ballots, not bets.
Polling stations – not prediction platforms – will produce the official result.
Still, the money already placed online tells its own story. It reflects expectations, scepticism and a broader shift in how politics now travels through the same speculative circuits as stocks, currencies and cryptocurrencies.
Long before the votes are counted, the outcome has already been priced.
Whether that price reflects reality is the one gamble no market can truly resolve.