Live data from Hacker News

FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

axios.com

1–10 of 241 posts

Re: FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

#4
Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple as:

- Polymarket is still very illegal in the US

- Lol. We all know it's easy to get around that

- If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws, he could be in trouble. And if there was evidence he was encouraging it, he could be in big trouble

Re: FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

#5

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.

> 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...

Re: FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

#6

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.

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.

Re: FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

#7

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.

Shutting them down before the election would have been much, much, much worse.

Re: FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

#9

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.

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.

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.

Re: FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan

#10

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.

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.

Post reply on HN