7 ms·

I don't get it. Most companies registered in the state I live in, for example, are not actually located here. They simply receive mail through their registered

I don't get it. Most companies registered in the state I live in, for example, are not actually located here. They simply receive mail through their registered agent there. Why would this be news?

Carioca 5mo ago
> Why would this be news? Mostly because international litigation is, let's say, fraught issues (as in "good luck!")
- forshaper 5mo ago
  Yes. Is that news?
Extropy_ 5mo ago
They acknowledge this in the article as well, surprisingly enough. > Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators. What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?
- forshaper 5mo ago
  I guess we're scratching our heads, and even we clicked.
- janalsncm 5mo ago
  It isn’t newsworthy for people who believe the laws around corporate transparency and accountability are good enough. Many people do not, which is why it is noteworthy, even if it is standard.
- horacemorace 5mo ago
  They’re avoiding editorializing. PBS news has the same dry “facts only” flavor. Legitimate reporting takes the high road; corpo-media too often take the low road. Unfortunately human information consumers tend to gravitate toward sources of maximum opinion.
  - randallsquared 5mo ago
    Do you think "housing a business inside a shell company" is not editorializing when referring (apparently) to running a company that has a registered agent in a normal, permissive jurisdiction like Panama, Ireland, or Delaware?
    - no-name-here 5mo ago
      What are the ‘personal opinions or subjective interpretations’ you feel it’s using? What would a rewrite be to be non-‘editorializing’ in your opinion?
    - fc417fc802 5mo ago
      No, I do not think that is editorializing. A shell company is a well understood concept that can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner. That said, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the US company was shut down under the settlement agreement. So if this is indeed a shell I'd be curious to know the name and jurisdiction of the core business.
      - randallsquared 5mo ago
        > A shell company is a well understood concept that can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner. Well, that's my point: a shell company doesn't do any substantial business involving customers, payroll, etc, while Polymarket does seem to be actually operating a business. The "shell company" appellation implies that Polymarket is merely a cover for hiding wealth. Actually, NPR doesn't even make the claim that Polymarket is a shell company, but just trots out a fact about shell companies without any particular connection to Polymarket in the middle of this article! It's an implication without any attempt to provide backing facts, and they technically said nothing in this about Polymarket that needs to be sourced: > Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators. I don't use Polymarket and may be a bit biased against them due to their X posting, but I used to work at NPR and am fairly dejected about how far they've gone in the past 10 years.
- Exoristos 5mo ago
  They're doing their part in keeping a spotlight on Polymarket. The content of the article is not irrelevant, but it is less important than the existence of the article.
creatonez 5mo ago
It is indeed already normal for rich people to do things that are sketchy as hell. Maybe let's make it not normal?
- JuniperMesos 5mo ago
  I really don't trust your definition of sketchy as hell and don't want it to have legal or normative force.
  - nullsanity 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - creatonez 5mo ago
    For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.
    - kube-system 5mo ago
      Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance. There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.
      - lenerdenator 5mo ago
        What are the altruistic aspects of operating a corporate entity that effectively operates as a casino where you can bet on literally anything? Did they incorporate as a PBC? Is there actual case law of people using a company's status as a PBC to effectively hold it to account for detrimental corporate conduct?
        5mo ago
aaron695 5mo ago
[dead]
raddan 5mo ago
On the other hand, most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations. Polymarket is prohibited from operating in the US market. Nevertheless they have a substantial customer base in the US, and the part left unsaid in the NPR story, is that they’re probably also headquartered in the US. Almost definitely a violation of either gambling or securities regulations.
- trollbridge 5mo ago
  They are often trying to dodge their local state’s regulations, though.
  - _--__--__ 5mo ago
    Incorporating in Delaware was initially attractive because of usury laws that matter to a small number of business sectors. The charitable take is that most corporations want to comply with a state's regulations because unintentional compliance violations are painful and expensive, and it is relatively easy to be confident that you are compliant as a Delaware corp.
    - eichin 5mo ago
      When I last did it, there were two wins for a tech startup incorporating in delaware: * it's easy and well-documented - the main thing you have to remember is to check the boxes that say this is an actual company, and not a holding company for a boat (where the real tax dodging is) * it was reported to make acquisitions easier (as the company acquiring you would either also be a Delaware corp or it would be more straightforward even if they weren't.)
      - kube-system 5mo ago
        Yes it is highly preferable for mergers/acquisitions/financing because the law is well established and widely known in those industries. If you run into some legal question somewhere down the line, investors and their lawyers will be much more comfortable with Delaware law than some other state who may not have clear language on the books and/or have never tested that particular situation in court before.
JuniperMesos 5mo ago
[flagged]
- NuclearPM 5mo ago
  It does.
- shermantanktop 5mo ago
  If the facts themselves discredit Polymarket, NPR doesn't have to like or dislike them. Polymarket made itself newsworthy, it can't complain if someone looks at them closely.
- micromacrofoot 5mo ago
  is it not true? from my perspective they're just stating a fact that some people may not be aware of (registering a business in a location it doesn't physically exist in)
alpb 5mo ago
this is a good explainer video that talks about why Polymarket maintains a Panama HQ instead of a US one and why it has two different sites (.us vs .com). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNwZhK4UdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNwZhK4UdA
King-Aaron 5mo ago
The point being, yes, we all know this, but also it's done purely to bypass taxation which shouldn't ever be accepted.
deckar01 5mo ago
> there was no sign of Polymarket, nor the entity it does business as The law firm at that address was not their registered agent. Their ToS mandated arbitration with an entity that doesn’t exist.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
tim333 5mo ago
It's not news. It's interesting because of Polymarket's size - $8bn traded in a month up 8x from a year back, controversy - $400k on military secrets, drama - FBI ramming the CEO's pad and the like. See also: Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me... 1090 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822 If it was just your average company it wouldn't be very interesting.

I don't get it. Most companies registered in the state I live in, for example, are not actually located here. They simply receive mail through their registered agent there. Why would this be news?

Carioca 5mo ago

> Why would this be news? Mostly because international litigation is, let's say, fraught issues (as in "good luck!")

forshaper 5mo ago
Yes. Is that news?

Extropy_ 5mo ago

They acknowledge this in the article as well, surprisingly enough. > Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators. What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?

forshaper 5mo ago
I guess we're scratching our heads, and even we clicked.
janalsncm 5mo ago
It isn’t newsworthy for people who believe the laws around corporate transparency and accountability are good enough. Many people do not, which is why it is noteworthy, even if it is standard.
horacemorace 5mo ago
They’re avoiding editorializing. PBS news has the same dry “facts only” flavor. Legitimate reporting takes the high road; corpo-media too often take the low road. Unfortunately human information consumers tend to gravitate toward sources of maximum opinion.
- randallsquared 5mo ago
  Do you think "housing a business inside a shell company" is not editorializing when referring (apparently) to running a company that has a registered agent in a normal, permissive jurisdiction like Panama, Ireland, or Delaware?
  - no-name-here 5mo ago
    What are the ‘personal opinions or subjective interpretations’ you feel it’s using? What would a rewrite be to be non-‘editorializing’ in your opinion?
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    No, I do not think that is editorializing. A shell company is a well understood concept that can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner. That said, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the US company was shut down under the settlement agreement. So if this is indeed a shell I'd be curious to know the name and jurisdiction of the core business.
    - randallsquared 5mo ago
      > A shell company is a well understood concept that can be assessed in a reasonably objective manner. Well, that's my point: a shell company doesn't do any substantial business involving customers, payroll, etc, while Polymarket does seem to be actually operating a business. The "shell company" appellation implies that Polymarket is merely a cover for hiding wealth. Actually, NPR doesn't even make the claim that Polymarket is a shell company, but just trots out a fact about shell companies without any particular connection to Polymarket in the middle of this article! It's an implication without any attempt to provide backing facts, and they technically said nothing in this about Polymarket that needs to be sourced: > Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators. I don't use Polymarket and may be a bit biased against them due to their X posting, but I used to work at NPR and am fairly dejected about how far they've gone in the past 10 years.
Exoristos 5mo ago
They're doing their part in keeping a spotlight on Polymarket. The content of the article is not irrelevant, but it is less important than the existence of the article.

creatonez 5mo ago

It is indeed already normal for rich people to do things that are sketchy as hell. Maybe let's make it not normal?

JuniperMesos 5mo ago
I really don't trust your definition of sketchy as hell and don't want it to have legal or normative force.
- nullsanity 5mo ago
  [dead]
- creatonez 5mo ago
  For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.
  - kube-system 5mo ago
    Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance. There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.
    - lenerdenator 5mo ago
      What are the altruistic aspects of operating a corporate entity that effectively operates as a casino where you can bet on literally anything? Did they incorporate as a PBC? Is there actual case law of people using a company's status as a PBC to effectively hold it to account for detrimental corporate conduct?
      - 5mo ago

aaron695 5mo ago

[dead]

raddan 5mo ago

On the other hand, most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations. Polymarket is prohibited from operating in the US market. Nevertheless they have a substantial customer base in the US, and the part left unsaid in the NPR story, is that they’re probably also headquartered in the US. Almost definitely a violation of either gambling or securities regulations.

trollbridge 5mo ago
They are often trying to dodge their local state’s regulations, though.
- _--__--__ 5mo ago
  Incorporating in Delaware was initially attractive because of usury laws that matter to a small number of business sectors. The charitable take is that most corporations want to comply with a state's regulations because unintentional compliance violations are painful and expensive, and it is relatively easy to be confident that you are compliant as a Delaware corp.
  - eichin 5mo ago
    When I last did it, there were two wins for a tech startup incorporating in delaware: * it's easy and well-documented - the main thing you have to remember is to check the boxes that say this is an actual company, and not a holding company for a boat (where the real tax dodging is) * it was reported to make acquisitions easier (as the company acquiring you would either also be a Delaware corp or it would be more straightforward even if they weren't.)
    - kube-system 5mo ago
      Yes it is highly preferable for mergers/acquisitions/financing because the law is well established and widely known in those industries. If you run into some legal question somewhere down the line, investors and their lawyers will be much more comfortable with Delaware law than some other state who may not have clear language on the books and/or have never tested that particular situation in court before.

JuniperMesos 5mo ago

[flagged]

NuclearPM 5mo ago
It does.
shermantanktop 5mo ago
If the facts themselves discredit Polymarket, NPR doesn't have to like or dislike them. Polymarket made itself newsworthy, it can't complain if someone looks at them closely.
micromacrofoot 5mo ago
is it not true? from my perspective they're just stating a fact that some people may not be aware of (registering a business in a location it doesn't physically exist in)

alpb 5mo ago

this is a good explainer video that talks about why Polymarket maintains a Panama HQ instead of a US one and why it has two different sites (.us vs .com). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNwZhK4UdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seNwZhK4UdA

King-Aaron 5mo ago

The point being, yes, we all know this, but also it's done purely to bypass taxation which shouldn't ever be accepted.

deckar01 5mo ago

> there was no sign of Polymarket, nor the entity it does business as The law firm at that address was not their registered agent. Their ToS mandated arbitration with an entity that doesn’t exist.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

tim333 5mo ago

It's not news. It's interesting because of Polymarket's size - $8bn traded in a month up 8x from a year back, controversy - $400k on military secrets, drama - FBI ramming the CEO's pad and the like. See also: Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me... 1090 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822 If it was just your average company it wouldn't be very interesting.