So you’re suggesting that isolated incidents of insider manipulation in player-specific betting markets don't qualify as "systemic insider risk" unless there's a clear mechanism linking them across various markets.
But isn't seeing repeated instances of insider manipulation in niche markets precisely how a systemic risk starts to show itself, even if we haven't mapped every single connection yet?
To me, it's like saying if a few houses on the street get burgled, it's not a security issue for the neighborhood until the same gang hits every single door.
The fact that some houses were vulnerable points to a wider problem with security protocols.
If these markets keep having insider problems, it means the structure or information flow is weak, making it a systemic risk even if the impact hasn't spread everywhere yet—like my friend who keeps finding hidden charges on her phone bill, it's not just one wrong charge, it's a pattern revealing a deeper issue.