Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

cftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 226 posts

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#121

Post by wildzzz »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #91
akerl_ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea; interstate commerce being the domain of the federal government is one of the more tested legal concepts we have here.

Just around, or slightly around the level of testing that Roe vs Wade prior to Dobbs. Or a bakers dozen of other established precedents that were "one of the more tested legal concepts" until ... recently.

Unfortunately for Roe v Wade, abortion and a right to privacy aren't explicitly laid out in the Constitution. Interstate commerce is. New York would be entirely in their right to ban Kalshi in New York but not halt operations nationwide.

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#123

Post by dlcarrier »

akerl_ wrote: post #32
aliasxneo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that New York is asking the court for a temporary restraining order that would prohibit Kalshi from offering all event contracts nationwide. I also have zero love for Kalshi, but I can see why such a request would be concerning, regardless of whether I think Kalshi is a degenerate trash heap.

Yea; interstate commerce being the domain of the federal government is one of the more tested legal concepts we have here.

…And growing wheat on your own land to feed your own cattle somehow counts as interstate commerce, despite no commerce taking place and the wheat never leaving your property, let alone the state. (Wickard v. Filburn)

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#124

Post by mrandish »

aliasxneo wrote: post #30
akerl_ wrote: post #15

EDIT: see DannyBee's comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 ). It does look like the CFTC has extrapolated the "nationwide" out of either some novel interpretation of the filing or just entirely fabricated it as their justification for their action. I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release. The art…

It seems that New York is asking the court for a temporary restraining order that would prohibit Kalshi from offering all event contracts nationwide. I also have zero love for Kalshi, but I can see why such a request would be concerning, regardless of whether I think Kalshi is a degenerate trash heap.

In saying, "New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide" the CFTC's press release substantially misrepresents the filing by the NY AG. On page 29, the filing requests "Permanently enjoining Respondent and its principals, agents, and employees from operating an unlawful gambling business, or otherwise advancing gambling activity, or profiting from gambling activity, within or from New York or to persons in New York, without being licensed by the New York State Gaming Commission" (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/new-york...).

Since Kalshi's HQ is in NY, I guess the most charitable interpretation is that perhaps the CFTC's statement is based on the assumption granting the TRO would have the net effect of disrupting Kalshi's operations everywhere until they can serve the site from outside NY. Of course, without disclosing that extrapolation, the statement is still factually incorrect.

Setting aside that significant error, I suspect this CFTC order is an attempt to create a federal vs state conflict in the hope the judge will suspend or defer any TRO until that issue is decided. I imagine Kalshi will file a response tomorrow arguing exactly that. Ultimately, this will still come down to whether Kalshi can be regulated by states, and if so, whether it's gambling.

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#125

Post by tsimionescu »

bhouston wrote: post #93
akerl_ wrote: post #15

EDIT: see DannyBee's comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 ). It does look like the CFTC has extrapolated the "nationwide" out of either some novel interpretation of the filing or just entirely fabricated it as their justification for their action. I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release. The art…

Your claim here is wrong: > 2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY. The State of New York did *NOT* file a temporary restraining order, neither in NY or nationally. Please find a citation of that if you want to claim it is true. Rather the State of New York filed suit here to stop operations in New York: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/20…

That claim is coming directly from the CFTC, it is not this user's novel claim.

It seems that overall the CFTC and the NYAG are presenting materially different event time lines, so as an outsider it's a bit unclear what is actually happening.

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#126

Post by [deleted] »

georgemcbay wrote: post #120
dmix wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to pretend the current US admin prioritizes state rights or separation of powers. They have very explicitly pushed an ideology of unitary power and maximizing their control of federal agencies over congress and state powers.

The Republicans don't just control the executive, they also control both chambers of Congress (and, lets be real, the Supreme Court as well). The fact that they don't act like it and just allow the executive to do whatever it wants doesn't absolve them of responsibility for what the executive does.

[deleted]

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#127

Post by tripletao »

akerl_ wrote: post #15

EDIT: see DannyBee's comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 ). It does look like the CFTC has extrapolated the "nationwide" out of either some novel interpretation of the filing or just entirely fabricated it as their justification for their action. I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release. The art…

I think the point of confusion or obfuscation is that Kalshi is headquartered in NYC, so an order prohibiting them from offering bets/contracts "within or from New York" has the effect of prohibiting them nationwide. They could move to a friendlier state, but they presumably would rather not.

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#128

Post by amluto »

charcircuit wrote: post #43
skillina wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional derivatives can be used to trade the risk that would already exist with or without the existence of the derivatives market. Prediction markets create risk out of thin air.

Do you think insurance markets create risk out of thin air too?

No.

And, in fact, there is a concept called an “insurable interest” that is intended to prevent this kind of thing.

If I buy an insurance contract that will pay me if your house burns down and then I burn down your house, then I’ve obviously committed arson, but I have also likely purchased that insurance contract illegally. And I don’t even need to burn down your house for that contract to be illegal.

(IANAL)

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#129

Post by amluto »

charcircuit wrote: post #87
skillina wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. If a building exists, there is a risk it burns down. Insurance just moves that risk around. The only way to eliminate the risk is to not build anything anywhere.

So what would be the difference between buying insurance against downtime of a service you depend on (eg. Cloudflare) vs making a bet on the prediction market that there will be downtime? Even without these markets there is risk that the service goes down. The existence of the prediction market doesn't cause it to be possible.

If I have an insurable interest in Cloudflare’s uptime, I may buy insurance. If not, I may not.

(IANAL. In the US this seems to largely be a state law issue. California’s law, to my quick non-expert skimming, is really quite clear on this point.)

Re: CFTC declares market emergency, orders Kalshi to continue to operate in New York

#130

Post by usehackernews »

wredcoll wrote: post #97
charcircuit wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what would be the difference between buying insurance against downtime of a service you depend on (eg. Cloudflare) vs making a bet on the prediction market that there will be downtime? Even without these markets there is risk that the service goes down. The existence of the prediction market doesn't cause it to be possible.

There is no risk to me if the rockets lose their next game. Unless I bet $100 on them winning, then a risk appears.

If you’re a Houston bar owner dependent on post game traffic, there would be risk of them losing.

There are a thousand of exchanges that have no risk on my life, but that doesn’t mean they don’t impact others.

Post reply on HN