Live data from Hacker News

Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

semafor.com

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#51
post #24

> “If you commit insider trading on Kalshi, that can and will at some point be a federal crime. It is a federal crime,” Am I misunderstanding? It seems like two different statements he always conflates. If it becomes a federal crime at some point, it will become illegal from that point — you can't prosecute people for acts committed before they were crimes. The only way that this could be a federal crime right now is…

It is a federal crime, but one could be forgiven for assuming federal crimes committed by this administration will not be prosecuted while this administration is in power.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#52
post #24

> “If you commit insider trading on Kalshi, that can and will at some point be a federal crime. It is a federal crime,” Am I misunderstanding? It seems like two different statements he always conflates. If it becomes a federal crime at some point, it will become illegal from that point — you can't prosecute people for acts committed before they were crimes. The only way that this could be a federal crime right now is…

I don't think he's saying people who do that right now will be prosecuted. I think he's just saying that it will become illegal so anyone doing it then runs the risk of being prosecuted.

> The only way that this could be a federal crime right now is if the government starts prosecuting it under existing laws without any changes. I don't see that as likely.

Fully agree, especially since Kalshi just caught one of the editors of MrBeast's videos red handed (he was betting on the "What words will MrBeast say in his next video" market with 100% accuracy) and while Kalshi banned the guy the DOJ has shown 0 interest in doing anything with that.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#53
I understand he wants to deflect liability from his platform, but I guess I have to concede that it seems like a legitimate defense. We allow the stock market to exist even though insider trading can happen and it's (I think?) not Nasdaq's or NYSE's responsibility to pursue that. We have a legal system for that.

I think there is still the debate to be had whether prediction market enable too much criminal activity and insider trading compared to traditional stock markets and therefore need to be limited for pragmatic reasons (i.e. the legal system can't keep up), but that's a different discussion.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#54
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give the Dems too much credit.

There was a downward trend during the Biden years [1] but "both sides same" is not even a little bit true. [1] https://www.citizen.org/article/biden-doj-2024-corporate-cri...

Ok calling this out. Both parties are involved in crimes. An example is both party's are involved in supporting Israel's fascist objectives.

Just because there is less reports of corruption in the past by dems doesn't change anything. Corruption extends beyond parties, its not a political problem. Its a human problem.

I don't expect to see much change when the dems come back into power, albeit, it be less apparent and of a different nature, I.E more indiscriminate surveillance and less racial profiling ..

There is some kind of cultural thing going on that transcends the party's IMHO that's keeping this problem going.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#55
post #24

> “If you commit insider trading on Kalshi, that can and will at some point be a federal crime. It is a federal crime,” Am I misunderstanding? It seems like two different statements he always conflates. If it becomes a federal crime at some point, it will become illegal from that point — you can't prosecute people for acts committed before they were crimes. The only way that this could be a federal crime right now is…

It is a federal crime, but one could be forgiven for assuming federal crimes committed by this administration will not be prosecuted while this administration is in power.

> one could be forgiven for assuming federal crimes committed by this administration will not be prosecuted while this administration is in power.

Nobody in this administration is going to be prosecuted no matter who is in power.

https://archive.is/TpLqO

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#56
post #31
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I was commenting on the current administration's corruption. I don't think most previous Republican administrations would have tolerated the type of insider trading we have seen from people close to the administration. It goes beyond ideology, turning a blind eye to this behavior among your subordinates is a sign of weak leadership and poor management.

If they’ve been fine with Congress trading stocks on insider knowledge forever why would this be any different?

This is actually a good example of this not being a partisan issue. A congressional stock trading ban is one of the few issues that doesn't break down by party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats have put forward bills to ban it and the percentage of the population in support of such efforts is very similar between Republicans and Democrats.

I'm also not going to defend Congressional stock trading. I think it should be banned. But there are some differences about who is doing the trading/betting, what specifically they are trading/betting on, and what that information communicates to the public. There's a fundamental difference between a random staffer betting the US will attack Iran on a certain date which becomes public immediately compared to a Congressperson themselves buying stock in a weapon manufacturer in the leadup to an attack knowing the purchase won't be disclosed to the public for up to 45 days.

Like I said, I would be against both, but it's much easier to justify Congressional stock trading than the insider trading we see on these prediction markets. Afterall, it isn't like Congress is moving to remove all insider trading legislation, so there is some recognition of nuance here even if they give themselves more leeway than we would want.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#57

Zero chance. This country has become an absolute joke of corruption, especially anything related to insider trading.

I agree the country has rampant corruption, but I disagree that the US DOJ should be pursuing insider trading on these markets.

Why should my tax dollars be spent on helping a bookie run their gambling business? Insider trading laws and prosecution in the financial markets makes sense, because the fair and impartial enforcement helps all of our economy, and allows capital to do its job investing in productive ventures.

These prediction markets are not that. They aren’t sources of investment for a productive enterprise, it is pure gambling.

Why should the US government spend money making sure people can gamble? If people want their gambling to be fair, they can pay for their own enforcement.

I like the idea of insider trading running rampant on these platforms. Once people realize that the other side of their bet knows the outcomes in advance, maybe they will stop betting their money on these platforms and they can just die.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#58
post #49
post #36

This issue reveals the gap between the prediction market premise and what these things actually are, which is: unregulated prop gambling venues. If things like Kalshi and Polymarket are prediction markets, then, at least as far as the intrinsic concerns of the market itself are concerned, insider trading is a good thing; literally part of the point. If they are instead how they function today, then insider trading is…

Even if you buy the idea that Kalshi is a prediction market whose mechanism is gambling but whose product is accurate predictions, you don't have to buy the idea that insider trading is a good thing. Yes, in the rare occasion there exists someone with (a) insider information (b) confidence their actions won't impact their insider position and (c) access to capital - then you get extremely accurate predictions. In eve…

> Since those who are predicting have to now construct their bets such that they know they can always get run over by an insider.

The average person does not do this. People trade individual stocks all the time, despite every other market participant (banks, hedge funds, etc.) having better information and technology.

It's why institutions like Citadel pay for retail order flow. They know that retail traders don't have an edge and, if anything, often end up being negative signal.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a federal crime, but one could be forgiven for assuming federal crimes committed by this administration will not be prosecuted while this administration is in power.

> one could be forgiven for assuming federal crimes committed by this administration will not be prosecuted while this administration is in power. Nobody in this administration is going to be prosecuted no matter who is in power. https://archive.is/TpLqO

A reasonable opposition party would declare the pardons invalid. Is that a valid interpretation of pardon power, does that undermine the legitimacy of our laws? Maybe, but not nearly as much as not punishing obvious and proud criminals does. That's the point of the rule of law, remember? It creates legitimacy, and therefore stability.

Re: Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

#60
I don't understand why it is a crime under current US law.

Prediction markets can only do sports gambling (the vast majority of their volume) because they self-certify under the CFTC. The CFTC doesn't have the same standards of "insider trading" as the stock market, because insider trading is the entire point of business at the CFTC!

If you're trading, like, oil futures or wheat futures or whatever, you are likely doing so specifically because you have inside information about your business needs or production that you want to hedge.

I understand why people are mad about gambling versus someone who has insider information, but under current US law I'm not sure that there is a case to be made.

Post reply on HN