The Danish government recently stirred up controversy over a prediction market platform valued at over $8 billion. The tax minister bluntly criticized these types of platforms: "Betting on death and destruction goes against all my values." Currently, this platform is facing the risk of being shut down after opening a series of sensitive contracts—covering geopolitical issues such as Ukraine ceasefire negotiations and Trump's acquisition of Greenland.

In terms of data, the Ukraine ceasefire contract has attracted a total of 376 million Danish kroner in bets, and over 33 million kroner have flowed into the Trump-related Greenland contracts. These figures alone highlight the seriousness of the issue—these are not just financial products but also involve human suffering at the deepest levels, such as war and geopolitical conflicts.

This debate has far exceeded mere regulatory concerns. It essentially questions a more fundamental issue: when the prediction mechanisms of the crypto world touch the boundaries of human suffering, how should we balance freedom and ethics? Denmark may become the first European country to take serious action against top prediction markets. But a deeper reflection is: if even war itself can be priced and traded, where is the ethical bottom line of Web3?

This could mark a turning point—moving from exploring "whether technology can achieve" to questioning "whether we should achieve" it. The current regulatory storm may just be the beginning of a larger game.