3 ms·

Polymarket is already working on a full return to the US market aided by sympathetic policy changes of the current administration. Additionally, the claim "mos

by pear01 5mo ago

Polymarket is already working on a full return to the US market aided by sympathetic policy changes of the current administration. Additionally, the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious. Every company seeks to lower its regulatory burden. If they're not finding loopholes, then often they're the ones writing the regulations and funding congressional campaigns. I'm not sure the claim Polymarket is unique re its relationship to the government in this respect is credible. They seem to be working quite intimately with the current administration on returning from their Biden era "ban".

raddan 5mo ago
There’s dodging and then there’s _dodging_. If you are operating in a legal gray area, that’s an unsavory business practice that is, as you say, widespread. Then there’s operating illegally in full view of everybody. I do not personally ascribe to the idea that a thing is OK just because one is not currently being prosecuted. Polymarket (and Kalshi) is bad for the country, their claims to the contrary are highly dubious, and it’s a case where not only are they actually in the wrong, they are quite specifically legally wrong.
- Spooky23 5mo ago
  Well, the good news for them is that the president’s children are involved in the company. It’ll be very easy to grease the appropriate hands.
- pear01 5mo ago
  You may feel that way, and I may sympathize. But I really think you are over-indexing on your own personal belief that they are "bad for the country". If we follow your logic then a company is doing more _dodging_ simply on the basis of one's own moral aversion. So maybe if I'm an environmentalist I think coal companies are especially dodgy. If I'm a pacifist maybe a defense contractor. If I'm an evangelical maybe a company that contracts with the government re some reproductive care. "operating illegally in full view" vs "legal gray area" is not a determination that can be made based on your subjective view of what "makes a thing OK". The fact that you pair the accusation that they are "operating illegally in full view" with the notion that you can condemn a thing that is not "currently being prosecuted" only further undermines your argument. Your moral objection is your judgement to make, the question of what is illegal cannot be. The latter is exclusively the domain of the courts, not any individual (or collective) moral outrage. Your seeming desire to conflate the two to satisfy your personal feelings unfortunately undermines whatever cogent points you may have re their legality on the merits. The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". You would be more convincing if you would levy your criticism in more reasonable terms. I personally suspect there is a lot more "gray area" here than you seem to contemplate.
  - raddan 5mo ago
    > The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". This is a seriously tiresome argument. How about this? Feel free to cite how their recent moves will enable them to 1. satisfy regulators that they are not violating the Commodity Exchange Act; 2. satisfy other parts of the government that they are not simply illegal gambling; 3. satisfy the states that are actively suing them RIGHT NOW. It does not matter that there are friendly people in the administration. The fact is that they were told to wind down their markets and leave. They did not do this. Even if their behavior may become legal in the future, it is currently illegal. My personal objection is IN ADDITION to the legal problems. My personal opinion is that this business and the people who run it SUCK. There’s no conflating: both things are true. Why do you insist on sticking up for douchebags?
    - pear01 5mo ago
      Because it's not illegal to be a "douchebag". I don't believe in mob rule. You proudly declare things illegal with all the confidence of someone who has never been a victim of the state's power. You must have a rather shallow view of history. I find your mild histrionics deeply unimpressive. Why do you insist on appropriating the language of law when you clearly have little respect for its precepts?
fsckboy 5mo ago
>the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious huh? you aren't making a coherent argument. registering in any US state you are still subject to the same federal regulations, Delaware is not different, it offers no shelter from federal regulations. in fact, if it is not your primary state of operation, then it subjects you to federal regulations for interstate commerce where you might not otherwise be.
kelnos 5mo ago
> the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious. Why would it? Choosing the state to incorporate in has very little to do with US federal regulations. If the US wants to come after your company for some reason, they file in federal court, and the state you're incorporated in is irrelevant. When incorporating, you choose the state based on its business-related laws and how they might apply to your company. You choose based on the experience of their judicial system in handling business matters. You might choose because there are a ton of other businesses incorporated in that state, and that's created a lot of court cases and a lot of precedent that can give your own legal team more confidence in how different sorts of legal challenge might play out. If you were trying to avoid US federal regulations, you might incorporate in Delaware for the simple reason that Delaware is a safe default, given how common it is for companies to incorporate there. Incorporating in an unusual state could raise an eyebrow here or there. But ultimately it's not going to matter all that much. And even if it's true that a federal-regulations-skirting company would have a measurable benefit to incorporating in Delaware, there's no reason to believe that lots of companies incorporated in Delaware are trying to skirt federal regulations. That's just an unfounded assertion. As an aside, it's not true that every company wants to decrease its regulatory burden. Once a company gets large enough, lobbying for extra regulation can be a barrier to entry for possible competitors. Also consider that "reducing regulatory burden" doesn't necessarily mean doing something illegal. In the case of Polymarket, they probably are, but plenty of other companies find ways to reduce their regulatory compliance needs in perfectly legal ways.
- pear01 5mo ago
  My comment was unclear. That quote was intended to connect with the parent claim that Polymarket was unique in "trying to dodge US federal regulations". The chain was: > 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? >> On the other hand, most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations. What I found dubious was predicated on this "on the other hand" - that is the notion that Polymarket is really doing anything unique re its dealings with US federal regulators. As per your last paragraph that touches on this, I already addressed this in another thread, but I'm simply not convinced that Polymarket is very unique here. It is common for new enterprises creating new industries to come into conflict with the law, and for both to evolve. Obviously Polymarket is not some large incumbent. The point was I find the notion that they are doing something singularly illegal or out of step with how most businesses operate dubious. I detect that in comments around this chain you and some others seem to want to create a hard barrier between the law and enterprise. That's not how reality works. Regulations change. Policies are modified. New laws are passed. Governments and businesses often collaborate in this process. To get back to what I was trying to respond to, I am simply asserting that indeed this should really not be "big news".

by pear01 5mo ago

raddan 5mo ago

There’s dodging and then there’s _dodging_. If you are operating in a legal gray area, that’s an unsavory business practice that is, as you say, widespread. Then there’s operating illegally in full view of everybody. I do not personally ascribe to the idea that a thing is OK just because one is not currently being prosecuted. Polymarket (and Kalshi) is bad for the country, their claims to the contrary are highly dubious, and it’s a case where not only are they actually in the wrong, they are quite specifically legally wrong.

Spooky23 5mo ago
Well, the good news for them is that the president’s children are involved in the company. It’ll be very easy to grease the appropriate hands.
pear01 5mo ago
You may feel that way, and I may sympathize. But I really think you are over-indexing on your own personal belief that they are "bad for the country". If we follow your logic then a company is doing more _dodging_ simply on the basis of one's own moral aversion. So maybe if I'm an environmentalist I think coal companies are especially dodgy. If I'm a pacifist maybe a defense contractor. If I'm an evangelical maybe a company that contracts with the government re some reproductive care. "operating illegally in full view" vs "legal gray area" is not a determination that can be made based on your subjective view of what "makes a thing OK". The fact that you pair the accusation that they are "operating illegally in full view" with the notion that you can condemn a thing that is not "currently being prosecuted" only further undermines your argument. Your moral objection is your judgement to make, the question of what is illegal cannot be. The latter is exclusively the domain of the courts, not any individual (or collective) moral outrage. Your seeming desire to conflate the two to satisfy your personal feelings unfortunately undermines whatever cogent points you may have re their legality on the merits. The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". You would be more convincing if you would levy your criticism in more reasonable terms. I personally suspect there is a lot more "gray area" here than you seem to contemplate.
- raddan 5mo ago
  > The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". This is a seriously tiresome argument. How about this? Feel free to cite how their recent moves will enable them to 1. satisfy regulators that they are not violating the Commodity Exchange Act; 2. satisfy other parts of the government that they are not simply illegal gambling; 3. satisfy the states that are actively suing them RIGHT NOW. It does not matter that there are friendly people in the administration. The fact is that they were told to wind down their markets and leave. They did not do this. Even if their behavior may become legal in the future, it is currently illegal. My personal objection is IN ADDITION to the legal problems. My personal opinion is that this business and the people who run it SUCK. There’s no conflating: both things are true. Why do you insist on sticking up for douchebags?
  - pear01 5mo ago
    Because it's not illegal to be a "douchebag". I don't believe in mob rule. You proudly declare things illegal with all the confidence of someone who has never been a victim of the state's power. You must have a rather shallow view of history. I find your mild histrionics deeply unimpressive. Why do you insist on appropriating the language of law when you clearly have little respect for its precepts?

fsckboy 5mo ago

>the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious huh? you aren't making a coherent argument. registering in any US state you are still subject to the same federal regulations, Delaware is not different, it offers no shelter from federal regulations. in fact, if it is not your primary state of operation, then it subjects you to federal regulations for interstate commerce where you might not otherwise be.

kelnos 5mo ago

> the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious. Why would it? Choosing the state to incorporate in has very little to do with US federal regulations. If the US wants to come after your company for some reason, they file in federal court, and the state you're incorporated in is irrelevant. When incorporating, you choose the state based on its business-related laws and how they might apply to your company. You choose based on the experience of their judicial system in handling business matters. You might choose because there are a ton of other businesses incorporated in that state, and that's created a lot of court cases and a lot of precedent that can give your own legal team more confidence in how different sorts of legal challenge might play out. If you were trying to avoid US federal regulations, you might incorporate in Delaware for the simple reason that Delaware is a safe default, given how common it is for companies to incorporate there. Incorporating in an unusual state could raise an eyebrow here or there. But ultimately it's not going to matter all that much. And even if it's true that a federal-regulations-skirting company would have a measurable benefit to incorporating in Delaware, there's no reason to believe that lots of companies incorporated in Delaware are trying to skirt federal regulations. That's just an unfounded assertion. As an aside, it's not true that every company wants to decrease its regulatory burden. Once a company gets large enough, lobbying for extra regulation can be a barrier to entry for possible competitors. Also consider that "reducing regulatory burden" doesn't necessarily mean doing something illegal. In the case of Polymarket, they probably are, but plenty of other companies find ways to reduce their regulatory compliance needs in perfectly legal ways.

pear01 5mo ago
My comment was unclear. That quote was intended to connect with the parent claim that Polymarket was unique in "trying to dodge US federal regulations". The chain was: > 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? >> On the other hand, most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations. What I found dubious was predicated on this "on the other hand" - that is the notion that Polymarket is really doing anything unique re its dealings with US federal regulators. As per your last paragraph that touches on this, I already addressed this in another thread, but I'm simply not convinced that Polymarket is very unique here. It is common for new enterprises creating new industries to come into conflict with the law, and for both to evolve. Obviously Polymarket is not some large incumbent. The point was I find the notion that they are doing something singularly illegal or out of step with how most businesses operate dubious. I detect that in comments around this chain you and some others seem to want to create a hard barrier between the law and enterprise. That's not how reality works. Regulations change. Policies are modified. New laws are passed. Governments and businesses often collaborate in this process. To get back to what I was trying to respond to, I am simply asserting that indeed this should really not be "big news".