5 ms·

Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple as: - Polymarket is still very illegal in the US - Lol. We all know it's easy to get around t

Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple as: - Polymarket is still very illegal in the US - Lol. We all know it's easy to get around that - If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws, he could be in trouble. And if there was evidence he was encouraging it, he could be in big trouble

herpderperator 2y ago
Can someone explain to me how this is? It's a company HQ'd in New York, but it's not allowed to do business in the very country it's HQ'd in? What am I missing?
- vinay427 2y ago
  As I understand it (very much not a lawyer), the company complies with US laws by not allowing people in the US to use it, so there’s no issue doing business.
- n2d4 2y ago
  You're not missing anything — that's exactly how it is. There's nothing that stipulates that US companies must sell to other US companies, and it's a great place for investments & startups, so even if Polymarket isn't licensed to operate in the US it still makes sense for them to be there.
  - Sebb767 2y ago
    > and it's a great place for investments & startups, so even if Polymarket isn't licensed to operate in the US it still makes sense for them to be there. Well, maybe for startups in general, but it apparently didn't work out for Polymarket. Also, it's probably a better case if you're just not targeting US customers, rather than being actually forbidden from trading with US customers.
- joecool1029 2y ago
  It was like this for fireworks in the past too. Used to go to Pennsylvania where it used to be illegal for PA residents to purchase them, they'd check your drivers license when you came in to validate it was from elsewhere and issue a 24hr transport permit to get it out of the state. Naturally the fireworks shops were mostly near state borders.
- IAmGraydon 2y ago
  You can do it, but it's an incredibly foolish way to operate, as the CEO is finding out.
- TMWNN 2y ago
  US Cellular <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Cellular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Cellular>, the US's fifth-largest mobile service provider, as of 2012 no longer operates in its headquarters city of Chicago. <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-cellular-to-sell-select-midwest-markets-to-sprint-177625271.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-cellular-to-sell...>
- itishappy 2y ago
  States like money. If you're complying with local laws and regulations then why wouldn't they want the tax revenue? Fireworks are illegal in NY and have been illegal in PA for much of the past two decades. Despite this, the border is crawling with fireworks stores. PA made it illegal to sell fireworks to PA residents, but totally legal to sell to residents of neighboring states provided they immediately transport them over state lines.
orblivion 2y ago
Kalshi got the goahead from an appeals court to list election bets. I think Robinhood added election bets soonafter. Is there a reason that wouldn't apply to Polymarket? Granted, Polymarket was operating before that ruling. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-federal-court-upholds-ruling-letting-kalshiex-list-election-betting-contracts-2024-10-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-federal-court-upholds-rulin...
- orblivion 2y ago
  What rake did I just step on? I'm getting downvoted for this.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    I think it's the perception that your comment assumes that the accusations by Polymarket that the Biden admin are targeting them for predicting Trump are true.
    - orblivion 2y ago
      I see. Well that was not my intention here.
- infecto 2y ago
  Has nothing to do with elections and all to do with being an unregulated market that has zero KYC.
  - z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
    An unrigged market like Robinhood*
- n2d4 2y ago
  Even if election bets are legal, the betting market is still highly regulated.
- tacticalturtle 2y ago
rty32 2y ago
The CEO or the company can only be in trouble if they are found guilty in court. That's not going to happen in the next two months, and Trump probably couldn't care less about this.
- cowsandmilk 2y ago
  Trump not caring will mean the case proceeds. Why would they drop it?
  - reaperman 2y ago
    The person who financed the vice president is a major investor in Polymarket.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  I'm not in the US, but as far as I know about the country the legal system there keeps running whether the current US President cares about individual cases or not...
  - rty32 2y ago
    Such cases would be pursued by DOJ or FCC or some other federal agency that the President has 100% control over. If the president asks to drop the case, it will be dropped.
    - jtbayly 2y ago
      He would have to care about the case to bother doing so…
    - kbolino 2y ago
      > some other federal agency that the President has 100% control over Neither Civil Servants nor Senior Executives can be directly terminated by the President without due process. Only appointees can be fired on a whim, and their replacements must be confirmed by the Senate. The only exception to this is "recess appointments" made when the Senate is not in session, but those appointments are temporary, and Congress can stay in session as long as needed (until the next seating after an election) to block these as long as both Houses agree to do so. Many federal agencies today are actually governed by boards of commissioners, with limits on the number of them that can be from the same party.
cryptica 2y ago
[flagged]
- threeseed 2y ago
  The standard is (a) whether the act was illegal, (b) the company knew it was illegal and did it anyway. None of what you listed is relevant since it isn’t illegal for example to suppress speech or mislead the public.
  - cryptica 2y ago
    The first amendment of the US constitutions says that it's illegal for the government to make a law which abridges people's freedom of speech. There are many cases of government entities working with social media companies to suppress speech as the Twitter Files have proved. As the government created and upholds those federal entities on the basis of laws, the government is responsible.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      No the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      If you’ll humor me - what specifically did the Twitter files show in that regard?
      - cryptica 2y ago
        The part where Elon's mum said she was shocked by the contents of the Twitter files and that's why she stopped being a democrat. That's all the info I needed. Haha. How leftist/neoliberal of me to outsource my opinion! Well, in my defence, Elon's mum is more trustworthy than CNN. She hasn't lied yet. Unlike your typical leftist, I actually keep score of such things.
Manuel_D 2y ago
From what I can gather online, US citizens can indeed legally bet on elections: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/election-betting-newly-legal-risks-getting-confused-polls-rcna177880 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/election-bett...
leshenka 2y ago
> If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws the frontpage being almost exclusively about US politics is kind of a giveaway

herpderperator 2y ago

Can someone explain to me how this is? It's a company HQ'd in New York, but it's not allowed to do business in the very country it's HQ'd in? What am I missing?

vinay427 2y ago
As I understand it (very much not a lawyer), the company complies with US laws by not allowing people in the US to use it, so there’s no issue doing business.
n2d4 2y ago
You're not missing anything — that's exactly how it is. There's nothing that stipulates that US companies must sell to other US companies, and it's a great place for investments & startups, so even if Polymarket isn't licensed to operate in the US it still makes sense for them to be there.
- Sebb767 2y ago
  > and it's a great place for investments & startups, so even if Polymarket isn't licensed to operate in the US it still makes sense for them to be there. Well, maybe for startups in general, but it apparently didn't work out for Polymarket. Also, it's probably a better case if you're just not targeting US customers, rather than being actually forbidden from trading with US customers.
joecool1029 2y ago
It was like this for fireworks in the past too. Used to go to Pennsylvania where it used to be illegal for PA residents to purchase them, they'd check your drivers license when you came in to validate it was from elsewhere and issue a 24hr transport permit to get it out of the state. Naturally the fireworks shops were mostly near state borders.
IAmGraydon 2y ago
You can do it, but it's an incredibly foolish way to operate, as the CEO is finding out.
TMWNN 2y ago
US Cellular <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Cellular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Cellular>, the US's fifth-largest mobile service provider, as of 2012 no longer operates in its headquarters city of Chicago. <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-cellular-to-sell-select-midwest-markets-to-sprint-177625271.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-cellular-to-sell...>
itishappy 2y ago
States like money. If you're complying with local laws and regulations then why wouldn't they want the tax revenue? Fireworks are illegal in NY and have been illegal in PA for much of the past two decades. Despite this, the border is crawling with fireworks stores. PA made it illegal to sell fireworks to PA residents, but totally legal to sell to residents of neighboring states provided they immediately transport them over state lines.

orblivion 2y ago

Kalshi got the goahead from an appeals court to list election bets. I think Robinhood added election bets soonafter. Is there a reason that wouldn't apply to Polymarket? Granted, Polymarket was operating before that ruling. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-federal-court-upholds-ruling-letting-kalshiex-list-election-betting-contracts-2024-10-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-federal-court-upholds-rulin...

orblivion 2y ago
What rake did I just step on? I'm getting downvoted for this.
- Sabinus 2y ago
  I think it's the perception that your comment assumes that the accusations by Polymarket that the Biden admin are targeting them for predicting Trump are true.
  - orblivion 2y ago
    I see. Well that was not my intention here.
infecto 2y ago
Has nothing to do with elections and all to do with being an unregulated market that has zero KYC.
- z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
  An unrigged market like Robinhood*
n2d4 2y ago
Even if election bets are legal, the betting market is still highly regulated.
tacticalturtle 2y ago

rty32 2y ago

The CEO or the company can only be in trouble if they are found guilty in court. That's not going to happen in the next two months, and Trump probably couldn't care less about this.

cowsandmilk 2y ago
Trump not caring will mean the case proceeds. Why would they drop it?
- reaperman 2y ago
  The person who financed the vice president is a major investor in Polymarket.
stephen_g 2y ago
I'm not in the US, but as far as I know about the country the legal system there keeps running whether the current US President cares about individual cases or not...
- rty32 2y ago
  Such cases would be pursued by DOJ or FCC or some other federal agency that the President has 100% control over. If the president asks to drop the case, it will be dropped.
  - jtbayly 2y ago
    He would have to care about the case to bother doing so…
  - kbolino 2y ago
    > some other federal agency that the President has 100% control over Neither Civil Servants nor Senior Executives can be directly terminated by the President without due process. Only appointees can be fired on a whim, and their replacements must be confirmed by the Senate. The only exception to this is "recess appointments" made when the Senate is not in session, but those appointments are temporary, and Congress can stay in session as long as needed (until the next seating after an election) to block these as long as both Houses agree to do so. Many federal agencies today are actually governed by boards of commissioners, with limits on the number of them that can be from the same party.

cryptica 2y ago

[flagged]

threeseed 2y ago
The standard is (a) whether the act was illegal, (b) the company knew it was illegal and did it anyway. None of what you listed is relevant since it isn’t illegal for example to suppress speech or mislead the public.
- cryptica 2y ago
  The first amendment of the US constitutions says that it's illegal for the government to make a law which abridges people's freedom of speech. There are many cases of government entities working with social media companies to suppress speech as the Twitter Files have proved. As the government created and upholds those federal entities on the basis of laws, the government is responsible.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    No the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    If you’ll humor me - what specifically did the Twitter files show in that regard?
    - cryptica 2y ago
      The part where Elon's mum said she was shocked by the contents of the Twitter files and that's why she stopped being a democrat. That's all the info I needed. Haha. How leftist/neoliberal of me to outsource my opinion! Well, in my defence, Elon's mum is more trustworthy than CNN. She hasn't lied yet. Unlike your typical leftist, I actually keep score of such things.

Manuel_D 2y ago

From what I can gather online, US citizens can indeed legally bet on elections: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/election-betting-newly-legal-risks-getting-confused-polls-rcna177880 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/election-bett...

leshenka 2y ago

> If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws the frontpage being almost exclusively about US politics is kind of a giveaway