5 ms·

Buying out the regulators and making competition illegal is the moat YC needed to invest

dang 4y ago
I have no knowledge about this particular case but that is absolutely not how YC operates or thinks about its business. I've never heard a single comment from anyone at YC along such lines. I'm not moderating this subthread the way we normally would*, but IMO you guys should be more scrupulous about posting snarky smears. * because https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (edit: for anyone wondering, I didn't flag the GP comment)
- tmansour 4y ago
  +1 on this. This is not how any of us operate. Regulation in this space is really tough and thorough - we've been battling through it for years now (also explains why this post is coming so long after the end of our batch!).
  - Lionga 4y ago
    The facts presented above make your company look very shady, and this answer is not clearing up anything. Like this most people will have to assume you really just paid off / bribed Brian Quintenz.
    - tmansour 4y ago
      this insider article should clear up a few things! https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-inside-look https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-i...
      - Lionga 4y ago
        It's paywalled and you not wanting to say anything yourself just smells bad
        livueta 4y ago
        Indeed. Why not take up Scott Alexander's proposal if there truly is nothing untoward here? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 > If someone from Kalshi wants to swear, in so many words, “We promise we put no effort into convincing CFTC to quash PredictIt”, I will believe them (although I would still suspect the CFTC was following a thought process like “now that Kalshi exists it would be embarrassing to let less-regulated markets exist alongside it”). Until then, I think cui bono remains the right question. Here's your chance, 'tmansour: if you didn't do anything wrong, why not say so yourself? I have no horse in this race or involvement with either party at all; I'm just interested because this feels like quite the betrayal of the usual ethos we'd expect from YC affiliation, and your responses on the topic so far are evasive enough to be a red flag in and of themselves.
- species9606 4y ago
  “I have no knowledge about this particular case” Respectfully, I think you should have stopped there, or perhaps earlier. There is quite a body of evidence already provided in this thread suggesting that Kalshi is an anticompetitive regulatory-capture play.
  - ghufran_syed 4y ago
    perhaps you could post said evidence?
    - species9606 4y ago
      I added an edit, indicating that this thread already has quite a bit of it.
  - dang 4y ago
    The GP comment was specifically a smear about YC, which is something I do have knowledge about. I don't for a moment believe that YC would invest in "buying out regulators and making competition illegal". That would go against everything I have ever heard, in public or in private, and everything I understand YC to be about. Just because we moderate HN less when YC or a YC-funded startup is part of a story does not mean I won't respond like a normal human being.
thwayunion 4y ago
Maybe not YC -- that's a strange thesis for seed money -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this strategy flowed from Sequoia; not as a primary investment thesis, or even the primary reason for bribing* a former regulator, but rather as a happy side pot payout. * Yes, the revolving door is bribery-by-any-other-name. Anger at this type of legalized overt corruption of our institutions is literally ripping the country apart.
- thecoppinger 4y ago
  Right on—this is my take, too.

dang 4y ago

I have no knowledge about this particular case but that is absolutely not how YC operates or thinks about its business. I've never heard a single comment from anyone at YC along such lines. I'm not moderating this subthread the way we normally would*, but IMO you guys should be more scrupulous about posting snarky smears. * because https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (edit: for anyone wondering, I didn't flag the GP comment)

tmansour 4y ago
+1 on this. This is not how any of us operate. Regulation in this space is really tough and thorough - we've been battling through it for years now (also explains why this post is coming so long after the end of our batch!).
- Lionga 4y ago
  The facts presented above make your company look very shady, and this answer is not clearing up anything. Like this most people will have to assume you really just paid off / bribed Brian Quintenz.
  - tmansour 4y ago
    this insider article should clear up a few things! https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-inside-look https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-i...
    - Lionga 4y ago
      It's paywalled and you not wanting to say anything yourself just smells bad
      - livueta 4y ago
        Indeed. Why not take up Scott Alexander's proposal if there truly is nothing untoward here? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 > If someone from Kalshi wants to swear, in so many words, “We promise we put no effort into convincing CFTC to quash PredictIt”, I will believe them (although I would still suspect the CFTC was following a thought process like “now that Kalshi exists it would be embarrassing to let less-regulated markets exist alongside it”). Until then, I think cui bono remains the right question. Here's your chance, 'tmansour: if you didn't do anything wrong, why not say so yourself? I have no horse in this race or involvement with either party at all; I'm just interested because this feels like quite the betrayal of the usual ethos we'd expect from YC affiliation, and your responses on the topic so far are evasive enough to be a red flag in and of themselves.
species9606 4y ago
“I have no knowledge about this particular case” Respectfully, I think you should have stopped there, or perhaps earlier. There is quite a body of evidence already provided in this thread suggesting that Kalshi is an anticompetitive regulatory-capture play.
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  perhaps you could post said evidence?
  - species9606 4y ago
    I added an edit, indicating that this thread already has quite a bit of it.
- dang 4y ago
  The GP comment was specifically a smear about YC, which is something I do have knowledge about. I don't for a moment believe that YC would invest in "buying out regulators and making competition illegal". That would go against everything I have ever heard, in public or in private, and everything I understand YC to be about. Just because we moderate HN less when YC or a YC-funded startup is part of a story does not mean I won't respond like a normal human being.

thwayunion 4y ago

Maybe not YC -- that's a strange thesis for seed money -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this strategy flowed from Sequoia; not as a primary investment thesis, or even the primary reason for bribing* a former regulator, but rather as a happy side pot payout. * Yes, the revolving door is bribery-by-any-other-name. Anger at this type of legalized overt corruption of our institutions is literally ripping the country apart.

thecoppinger 4y ago
Right on—this is my take, too.