Most active commenters
  • scottyah(3)

←back to thread

249 points jaboutboul | 15 comments | | HN request time: 1.465s | source | bottom
1. underseacables ◴[] No.42130248[source]
I think the key factor here is that the website allowed Americans to bet on the political market. Which I still don't quite understand, the FBI waiting until after the election for this. Why didn't they go after them sooner?

Feels wrong.

replies(5): >>42130346 #>>42130348 #>>42130398 #>>42130626 #>>42130895 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42130346[source]
> Which I still don't quite understand, the FBI waiting until after the election for this. Why didn't they go after them sooner?

Because the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have gone to town if the market predicting Trump's win were shut down before the election?

Polymarket hit popular imagination in the summer of 2023 with the Titan submersible [1]. American political betting didn't hit papers until earlier this year. We're well within normal FBI timelines for executing a first search.

[1] https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-missing-submarine-be-f...

3. bigtechennui ◴[] No.42130348[source]
One explanation is it gives Polymarket more rope to hang themselves with. Trading volume likely spiked in the lead up, and during, election night. Big numbers make for splashier headlines.

Another could be concern of doing anything visibly election related prior to the election, in case the winner didn’t like the action.

replies(1): >>42130477 #
4. legitster ◴[] No.42130398[source]
Shutting them down before the election would have been much, much, much worse.
5. inglor_cz ◴[] No.42130477[source]
While I understand that logic, I also find it a bit distasteful. Law enforcement shouldn't tolerate crimes being committed on its watch any longer than necessary.

Of course, the exact meaning of "necessary" is the problem. We can probably all agree that letting a serial murderer kill more people in order to have more evidence against him would be an absolute abomination. But the situation is not that clear with white-collar crime, especially the sort of crime where the harm is not immediately obvious.

Maybe the fact that the FBI could wait that long before pouncing indicates that this sort of betting is, in fact, a victimless crime.

replies(4): >>42130932 #>>42131455 #>>42131650 #>>42131684 #
6. csours ◴[] No.42130626[source]
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-does-the-60-day-ru...

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-protection-government-...

> " Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. "

Don't get stuck in a framing story.

7. scottyah ◴[] No.42130895[source]
Robinhood launched a new feature where we could bet on the presidential candidate. I've heard of a couple others too, so I think that laws were created and funded by competitors, and they defined what was legal in a way that excluded polymarket.

I think in this case, polymarket allows betting on anything, competitors got betting on the election legalized (https://www.barrons.com/news/last-minute-legal-ruling-allows...), so they get the cash from polymarket's idea then get them banned/stopped long enough to take their market share.

VC's call it Regulatory Capture, politicians call it corruption.

replies(1): >>42131190 #
8. dopamean ◴[] No.42130932{3}[source]
They probably have a different definition of what is "necessary" than you. If waiting for further crimes to be committed makes the case more of a sure thing in their eyes) then it's necessary. Or if it gives them more serious crimes to prosecute or a higher up person to prosecute. I believe this is common in organized crime investigations.
9. aiforecastthway ◴[] No.42131190[source]
Polymarket could've easily registered as an exchange at any point in the last 4+ years, and then itself filed the suit that its competitors filed. Instead they chose to just ignore the law.

> VC's call it Regulatory Capture

This isn't regulatory capture. You can disagree with the regulation, but the barrier to entry here is not that high. Kalshi is like 5 years old.

"Capture" is a thing, and it does not just mean "any regulation that I happen to disagree with".

You do need capital to stand up a regulated exchange, but, then, you also need capital to stand up an unregulated exchange. And the difference between those two numbers is not nearly big enough to come anywhere close to creating capture.

replies(1): >>42131428 #
10. scottyah ◴[] No.42131428{3}[source]
You're right, I had been using a definition of regulatory capture that doesn't really fit what I'm seeing when I look it up. I learned it to mean capture of market share through regulation, either by getting your competitors banned, forced creation of consumers through law (like car seats/helmets/paper straws). Maybe someone knows what that is called?

Instead, it means regulatory agencies become dominated by the interests of those they were originally charged to regulate.

I still speculate this raid to be Kalshi/Robinhood/whomever to be going after polymarket at a prime time- the concept of betting on events got huge and the industry of event-hedging directly (avoiding the stock market proxy) no longer needs to band together to get the idea out- now it's a matter of getting all the consumers to choose your particular product vs a competitors.

replies(1): >>42131612 #
11. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.42131455{3}[source]
The wheels of justice move slowly, and for good reason.

I'm confused what your point is? Is it when cops/prosecutors build cases that take time they are tacitly saying the crime is victimless? Do you think law enforcement should only target street level dealers/car thieves because to spend time building cases against drug distributors/chop shops renders the crime victimless?

12. aiforecastthway ◴[] No.42131612{4}[source]
The Prediction Market industry got out ahead of regulation and effectively chose their own (weak and hands-off) regulator in the CFTC. The requirements involved are not onerous. There are certainly jurisdictions where actual gambling is more tightly regulated. I am not exaggerating when I say that any pair of a good programmer and a decent lawyer could do the technical work to stand up a compliant exchange (they'd need capital, but, again, nothing insane compared to the capital you'd need for an unregulated exchange anyways).

I don't think you are at all correct about the relationship between Polymarket and other event trading venues. For one thing, Kalshi and polymarket are basically contemporaneous. For another, Polymarket plays at these games too (Polymarket has a former Commissioner of the CFTC on their board).

To the extent that Polymarket is playing in the legal grey zone, it's an active choice on their part, not a result of competitors' regulatory advantage or Polymarket's lack of access to regulatory leverage.

replies(1): >>42139352 #
13. standardUser ◴[] No.42131650{3}[source]
> Law enforcement shouldn't tolerate crimes being committed on its watch any longer than necessary.

That is simply not how it works and for good reason. If it were, imagine the consequences. Most charges would never lead to a trial or a conviction because law enforcement would have acted on the very first sign of criminal action instead of investigating further or working their way up the chain. We'd only end up arresting low level foot soldiers and the higher ups would get away every single time.

14. anigbrowl ◴[] No.42131684{3}[source]
OK but what if that serial murderer were running for president? It would be wrong to deny the people their chance to be governed by a gleeful psychopath.

As HL Mencken once said 'Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.'

15. scottyah ◴[] No.42139352{5}[source]
You seem to be anti-polymarket. I'm speculating that one or more of their competitors are behind the timing on this raid, and not offering any opinion on whether polymarket made a wise choice in not seeking regulation or whether or not they would also pull the same move on competitors.

IMO, the counters to my speculations would be that the raid was because they got too popular and the gov didn't want a million people starting up their own exchanges, or they reached a monetary tipping point the gov set to warrant a raid.