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

Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#221

Post by blitzar »

jhbadger wrote: post #219
superfrank wrote: post #34

For the record, Minnesota currently has a complete ban on sports betting. We've seen a couple other states that allow sports betting go after prediction markets. Personally, I feel that any state that allows sports betting is going to struggle to argue a case to ban prediction markets because you're essentially arguing over implementation details. Even arguments that certain prediction markets are ripe for insider tr…

I'm not a fan of sports betting, but surely you can see how betting on a game is not the same thing as betting on a war? People generally don't die because of a sports game (although it happens rarely).

Prediction markets dont just include markets for how many children america will dismember, there are also markets on who wins elections etc.

I think we can all see that betting on the Superbowl is the same thing as betting on the presidential election.

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#222

Post by Yizahi »

nojito wrote: post #135
superfrank wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, over 90% of the wagers on Polymarket and Kalshi are already on sports (quoting John Oliver's Last Week Tonight on that one). Despite the headlines, Kalshi and Polymarket are mainly just sportsbooks. Second, while yes, some of the markets available on prediction markets can push people to do awful things, there are plenty that are harmless. I'm cherry picking to make an extreme point, but I would so much rather…

>Kalshi and Polymarket are mainly just sportsbooks. How? They sell contracts between two users. One side each. Completely different from a sportsbook where users are betting that the lines they set are not correct.

If they sell contracts on market prediction, then any person doing for example insider trading on corporations, fixing outcomes of sport events, directly paying out others to force event outcome, blackmailing people, or just directly adjusting some result like the CDG weather guy are completely in line with the platform rules and all that is perfectly legal. But since Poly and Kalshi themselves admit that those things are "unfair" and forbidden they have themselves removed their "just a contract" status and transitioned to a gambling status, where indeed fixing matches is bad.

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#223

Post by techdmn »

superfrank wrote: post #121
mayneack wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing over implementation details is a pretty common thing for laws to do. Maybe it would weaken the logical consistency of their laws, but that's not really a thing that matters. Why do states allow hunting some animals and not others? Why do states distinguish between different forms of income to tax? It's all implementation details.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't debate the implementation details. I just think they should be separate arguments. It's like if someone killed my dog with 3d printed gun and so everyone started talking about banning or regulating 3d printers. It's like, yes, debating 3d printer regulation is probably a worthwhile debate to have, but regardless of where we end up on that it doesn't change the fact that that person killed…

This is both one of my pet peeves and a thing that legislators seem to love: Somebody does a thing that is already illegal, but in a slightly novel way. Perfectly valid statute exists to prosecute, but legislators want to be seen as doing something, so they pass another law to make the already criminal action more specifically criminal.

Arguably bans on cellphone use while driving are a good example. It's not that it isn't bad, it's that distracted driving already carries a hefty fine without being specific as to the mode of distraction. So does causing an accident, which presumably is the harm we're actually trying to avoid.

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#224

Post by mikeyouse »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #188
827a wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CFTC uses the following argument in their press release: [1] > This Minnesota law turns lawful operators and participants in prediction markets into felons overnight,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. “Minnesota farmers have relied on critical hedging products on weather and crop-related events for decades to mitigate their risks. Governor Walz chose to put special interests first and American farmers and inn…

A better question to ask: Regulated futures markets haves existed in the US for over 100 years. Why haven't they added sports (or any other category that prediction markets cover)? The answer is simple: There is no legitimate economic need.

Right. Futures markets exist to hedge some already present risk.. airlines can buy fuel futures to protect against the risk of fuel price rises, etc. Prediction markets create a new source of risk.

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#225

Post by baggachipz »

throwawa1 wrote: post #160

This is great news. From my perspective from someone who grew up in the 90s, America feels like we took the turn towards Biff Tannen's Pleasure Paradise. A future very fa from our promise filled with gambling, social degradation, and worse economic prospects for everyone. Gambling sites like Polymarket are just a symptom. More states need to move in this direction, because its just a tax levied on the uninformed to i…

And Biff is the president D:

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#226

Post by abustamam »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #193
abustamam wrote: post #176

> The prohibition extends to services supporting prediction markets, like virtual private networks, that could allow consumers to disguise their location and get around the ban. Yikes. I am all for banning prediction markets but I feel like this is overreaching.

If you don't actually sell someone something illegal, but take them to buy illegal things using the safety of your car so they avoid detection - are you innocent? Drinking and driving exists and is illegal, but going to the grocery store isn't. Should we do an all or nothing sort of ban, either allowing drunk driving or banning cars altogether? No one would do this - some uses are illegal, most aren't. A law that all…

Using your analogy, this is a law that bans cars for everyone so that people can't go to the store to buy an illegal lottery ticket.

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#227

Post by yccs27 »

techdmn wrote: post #223
superfrank wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't debate the implementation details. I just think they should be separate arguments. It's like if someone killed my dog with 3d printed gun and so everyone started talking about banning or regulating 3d printers. It's like, yes, debating 3d printer regulation is probably a worthwhile debate to have, but regardless of where we end up on that it doesn't change the fact that that person killed…

This is both one of my pet peeves and a thing that legislators seem to love: Somebody does a thing that is already illegal, but in a slightly novel way. Perfectly valid statute exists to prosecute, but legislators want to be seen as doing something, so they pass another law to make the already criminal action more specifically criminal. Arguably bans on cellphone use while driving are a good example. It's not that it…

Making laws more explicit in important cases is valuable because it reduces uncertainty about legal interpretation. Using your example of cellphone use, under distracted driving laws the prosecution would have to prove that the specific case of cellphone use was distracting enough to be a safety hazard. With the more specific ban on cellphones, that is no longer an obstacle.

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#228

Post by antasvara »

superfrank wrote: post #34

For the record, Minnesota currently has a complete ban on sports betting. We've seen a couple other states that allow sports betting go after prediction markets. Personally, I feel that any state that allows sports betting is going to struggle to argue a case to ban prediction markets because you're essentially arguing over implementation details. Even arguments that certain prediction markets are ripe for insider tr…

I think the case is pretty clear regardless: gambling is supposed to be a state-regulated activity, and Kalshi is gambling but is regulated by the CFTC at the federal level. So I think the argument is "we want to be the ones to regulate sports gambling in our state," whoch is independent of whether or not it's currently legal in the state.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and "we don't want sports gambling" is different legally from "we want to be the regulator of gambling." But it seems like they're just variations of the same question, which is: do states have the power to regulate this?

Re: Minnesota becomes first state to ban prediction markets

#229

Post by behringer »

meta_gunslinger wrote: post #212
HoldOnAMinute wrote: post #136

What a waste of time and energy

Agreed, instead of focusing on the rampant fraud happening under their watch they are focusing on consensual behaviour between adults.

There's rampant fraud on the "prediction markets".
Post reply on HN