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

9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

azmirror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 184 posts

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#101

Post by inigyou »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #71
pibaker wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can equate Kalshi style "prediction market" with gambling in Vegas. The worst thing that can happen in Vegas is you the gambler go bankrupt. In the meantime we already have reports of war intelligence in Ukraine being distorted so someone who betted on frontline movements can pocket some cash. Losing a war because some rich degenerate is trying to bet his way towards a second Ferrari is less unlikel…

The reports that were altered were public reports at the ISW from open reporting, not government intelligence. If you lose a war because you based your tactics and strategy off of media reports instead of your own intel, you weren't going to win that war anyway. That said, I recognize the broader point. Betting on everything, especially things that betters can directly influence is incredibly dangerous.

Someone blew a hair dryer at a weather station at Paris CdG airport to win a bet.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#102

Post by [deleted] »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #70

(Not American) What does 9th circuit or some circuit court mean? It some name of a specific court, just not the place name? Or is it special kind of court and “9” is some sort of level? Importance or hierarchy related? Escalation level? (Assuming your SC eventually is also at the top like in India)

[deleted]

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#103

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

skissane wrote: post #94
reliabilityguy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure a vote of non-confidence would have helped here — there are only two parties.

> I am not sure a vote of non-confidence would have helped here — there are only two parties. But why are there only two parties? The rest of the Anglosphere–Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK–have multiparty systems–some are more multiparty than others, but none of them have the hard two-party system that the US has, in which third parties have a very marginal role (not completely marginal – e.g. in a c…

Even if first-past-the-post could change, it's not the whole ballgame. To get on a state ballot you need thousands of petition signatures, and those signatures can be invalidated on technicalities brought up by major parties' legal teams. To be covered by the media or be included in a debate you need to poll at a high percentage. You can't get public funding to campaign unless you already had a high percentage of the vote in a previous election. Nobody will donate to you because the third party just detracts from the other two that will give the big donors what they want. And gerrymandering ensures the same people keep getting elected. All those roadblocks are in place because the two major parties put them there to prevent 3rd party challengers. The whole thing is rigged.

Just to show up and get 1% of the vote, you would need a grassroots national movement to elect someone who was wildly popular, who could build a 50-state network of volunteers (including legal, political, financial, community organizing, etc), sponsored by someone with extremely deep pockets that doesn't want anything from established political figures. And you'd still lose.

We have representatives already. The problem is we never hold their feet to the fire. We keep voting for the same useless bastards, and we don't vote them out when they do nothing. Half the country doesn't vote. That's our own responsibility we're shirking. Rather than get a new party, we need to get off our collective asses, and use the existing power we have to force the parties to do their jobs.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#104

Post by watwut »

tmp10423288442 wrote: post #75
DannyBee wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully, the CFTC can't actually order Kalshi to continue operating in NY despite being in violation of NY law. They have no authority to override any judge's order/etc, and at least so far, have not pretended they do. As for me, i've never pretended it's either normal or desired for the courts to make policy, whether congress is dysfunctional or not. Among other things. My comment was basically pointing out that…

> the current supreme court seems perfectly willing to throw out decades of settled law on an ideological whim, and actually, for that matter, happily interpret very clear congressional statutes in very odd ways Fortunately or unfortunately, the Supreme Court has always been willing to do that. This court has been overruling decisions of the Warren Court, just as the Warren Court overruled decisions from the Lochner…

Overruling bad decisions is not a problem. Following is a problem:

> decades of settled law on an ideological whim, and actually, for that matter, happily interpret very clear congressional statutes in very odd ways

This court is not like the previos one. Things are not the same

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#105

Post by 9dev »

Alpha3031 wrote: post #51
jfengel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have them because the Founders thought it was a good idea. Then they thought it was a good idea to have two houses with different criteria, giving two chances to quash legislation. Plus the veto. Plus the Supreme Court (whose job they left almost completely undefined, so they made up a job description). So we have them because we can't get rid of them. But they are practically useless. They can usually manage the…

Well, one should also remember that they thought protecting the opulent minority was so important that an entire house ought to represent them. Secure the permeant interests of the country and all that. Not that the other house isn't also tilted that way, but it seems to be that they, and the appointments approved by them, are functioning exactly as was intended (as shown by the supreme court suddenly caring about ex…

They also thought owning slaves was a good idea. Perhaps we shouldn’t let men dead for centuries dictate how to run the country anymore?

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#106

Post by ketzu »

steveBK123 wrote: post #44
8note wrote: post #23

as an argument for sports betting as a market, i remember when the wrong team won the world series, and hadnt setup their correct merch and so on for online sales, and it was a disaster trying to get all the right stuff together to minimize fraud and abuse. if an online sales provider could hedge against the risk of that win, the gamble would help pay for all the chaos as a result

Lots of bespoke insurance already exists. Lloyds will insure your rocket cargo or even provide terrorist strikes. Doesn’t mean we need people wagering at kalshi on “number of terrorism fatalities in London before end of 2025”.

> Doesn’t mean we need people wagering at kalshi on “number of terrorism fatalities in London before end of 2025”.

Reminds me of something from the last decade, but I am not sure anymore if it was a discussion or a desceiption: how to structure a "murder for hire" platform to give it plausible deniability/legality by turning it into bets. "I bet $100.000 @ketzu lives to the end of the year" can be read as life insurance, tasteless betting, or as a challenge to someone betting against it. (which is why here you need a legitimate interest to buy life insurance on someone)

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#107

Post by 9dev »

jfengel wrote: post #39
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because Kalshi doesn't want to follow the actual law Correction: because the federal government doesn't want Kalshi to follow the actual law. CFTC ordered Kalshi to continue operating in NY when NY tried to crack down on it. Donald Trump Jr. is a paid advisor for Kalshi. The US Government's conservative leaders are ignoring states' rights in order to personally profit, using Kalshi as a tool. > this will end up at…

We have them because the Founders thought it was a good idea. Then they thought it was a good idea to have two houses with different criteria, giving two chances to quash legislation. Plus the veto. Plus the Supreme Court (whose job they left almost completely undefined, so they made up a job description). So we have them because we can't get rid of them. But they are practically useless. They can usually manage the…

As Donald Trump and the Republicans have so aptly proven, all checks and balances depend on an elaborate system of conventions, manners and personal honor, and a general spirit of compliance. As soon as the electorate votes for a party and administration choosing to simply ignore all that, the system folds entirely.

That is also the core problem for reestablishing trust with the rest of the world: Even if a Democrat or just a sane Republican wins in 28 and tries to revert many of the destructive policies the current administration enacted, there is now solid evidence the much-hailed system of checks and balances doesn’t work as advertised. And that means there is not really a legitimate argument to trust the US as much as countries and businesses did, which calls a lot of things into question—the bond market, the petrodollar, investments in the USA, dependency on American services…

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#108

Post by laserlight »

highfrequency wrote: post #53
runako wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kalshi is just hoping to be treated like Uber was. This is not a bad strategy for a company in our asymmetric regulatory environment. Fortunes were made in crypto on exactly this one-way bet. Go on breaking the law until you get a favorable judge/Congress. Nobody is going to jail (we don't really do that anymore), you might pay a fine. Every once in a while you'll have change the app a little to sort of comply with…

> Go on breaking the law until you get a favorable judge/Congress. Nobody is going to jail (we don't really do that anymore), you might pay a fine. Binance, FTX, BitMex, Silk Road founders all went to jail - it’s a huge coin flip.

Sam Bankman Fried wasn't jailed for running FTX. He was jailed for conducting fraud. Silk Road wasn't a registered company at all. It was downright criminal.

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#109

Post by apples_oranges »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #70

(Not American) What does 9th circuit or some circuit court mean? It some name of a specific court, just not the place name? Or is it special kind of court and “9” is some sort of level? Importance or hierarchy related? Escalation level? (Assuming your SC eventually is also at the top like in India)

I see a lot of questions here that can be googled or asked with AI chat. Good question, but I also think, why didn’t that person just find out themselves? It’s so easy..

Re: 9th Circuit sides with states in Kalshi gambling fight

#110

Post by dakolli »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #78
dakolli wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't tax revenue in sports gambling markets, it actually just leads to predatory gambling products with massive vig/house edge. This was attempted in Tennessee. Margins are extermely low sports betting, like 4.5%. Its actually a loss leader typically. So for casinos that only have this type of wagering it taxes like this aren't going to work. A casino might turn over 50 billion yearly but only have a 2.5% edge i…

Sports betting was, if not prohibited, then highly-proscribed for most of my life. You could do it in a few places like OTB, go to Vegas, or deal with an illegal bookie. People still gambled, but this made the problem orders of magnitude smaller than it is today. We did not need Sharia law or the guillotine, just an existing system of laws that were generally highly workable. It is not helpful to pretend like we need…

I really dont think the problem has gotten worse, its just more visible. The previous status quo didnt work either, you just didnt hear as much about it because there weren't commercials.

In all reality, the NASDAQ does the entire yearly turnover Klashi and Polymarket combined in a few minutes. It hasnt become as big of a problem as people make it out, but its still a problem.

But there's no going back to the status quo with 1990s methods of enforcement. Everyone knows how to use crypto and VPNs, you'd just be pushing people into shady offshore.

Post reply on HN