3 ms·
It's kind of hard to take Kalshi out of this, since the whole premise for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority here is that Kalshi is a commodit
by decimalenough 2mo ago
It's kind of hard to take Kalshi out of this, since the whole premise for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's authority here is that Kalshi is a commodity futures trading exchange, not a gambling site.
- eclipticplane 2mo agoWhen can I take delivery of my 2026 NBA Knicks team, that I purchased through the commodity futures market? I'm available Friday.
- tyre 2mo agoI think the gp just means, “if we put aside that this is a contentious company.” I’m not sure that interstate commerce should apply here—it seems correct that a state can ban gambling, even if it is on the Internet against out-of-state US nationals—but if the CFTC is asserting its pre-emption under existing law, it needs to assert it (as it is doing so here.) It’s pretty clear that this is (a) gambling and (b) explicitly excluded from the CFTC’s legal mandate (“gaming”), but obviously this is about corruption and not a good faith interpretation. I expect this to go to the Supreme Court and for the Court to side with the corruption.
- nickff 2mo agoIf Wickard v Filburn is still good law, I don’t understand how the betting market is anything but interstate commerce. Futures trading is betting, especially where they’re settled in cash.
- AlotOfReading 2mo agoStates have been individually regulating gambling within their borders since they were English colonies. No one interpreted it as interstate commerce until PASPA in 1992, which was gutted by Murphy.
- brainwad 2mo agoEveryone points to the gaming exemption, but is that not supposed to cover, well, games - the classic casino table games like blackjack, poker, craps, roulette, etc? I don't really see how horse or sports betting is gaming.
- tadfisher 2mo agoMaybe an "event outcome prediction contract" simply ought not to be considered a "commodity" under any consistent interpretation of the law and the English fucking language.
- dannyw 2mo agoI think it should be well defined. I personally think prediction markets for say, federal and state elections, are a net benefit. It provides another source off information, and there’s much less insider trading risk. “”Event outcome prediction contracts”” on sports, clinical trials, is late stage capitalism, and yes, bullshit.
- antasvara 2mo agoI think the point is more "why is the outcome of an event like an election considered a commodity" and not a question of the value of event contracts? Like, why would the same agency regulating wheat futures also be responsible for regulating event contracts? I know the simple answer is that Congress said they should be, but conceptually it's a bit odd.
- johnnyanmac 2mo ago>It provides another source off information, and there’s much less insider trading risk. You see another source of information. I see another point of potential corruption. Statistics is already hard enough to do right without the extremely perverse incentives that gambling brings. That said, gambling is still legal. Put it under its proper regulations and there's not really much I can say against it. Unless there is in fact regulations around gambling with election races.
- brainwad 2mo agoIt falls out of regulating OTC swaps as commodities derivatives, even when they are not actually derivative of a commodity (e.g. forex swaps or credit default swaps). If whether a set of bonds defaults by a certain date is a commodity, then any factual proposition is also a commodity if someone constructs a swap around it.