3 ms·

Maybe an "event outcome prediction contract" simply ought not to be considered a "commodity" under any consistent interpretation of the law and the English fuck

• dannyw 2mo ago
  I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  It 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.