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

Kalshi CEO expects US DOJ to prosecute insider trading cases

semafor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 150 posts

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

#61

Post by c7b »

tptacek wrote: 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…

Where do you see a difference? Like you said, there is a libertarian argument that can be made for why insider trading is desirable. If the bet is easily manipulable, like how many times someone will visit a place, then the rational response is for others not to bet on that market. The same argument still holds.

You can disagree with the libertarian argument, but I don't see how you can say that Polymarket et al. are something other than a prediction market. Can you explain where you see the difference?

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

#62

Post by Karrot_Kream »

tptacek wrote: post #41
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er it's not. Gambling where the house takes a cut is considered a form of commercial gambling and is often made illegal or has stipulations applied to it. If you're asking about why prediction markets fall under the CFTC, this is actively evolving but generally prediction markets are considered to be under the CFTC because they can be used to hedge against events. For example if you're trying to do business in Oman b…

You have managed to conjure a definition of "gambling" that excludes casino blackjack.

I didn't actually define gambling? I just said it's complicated. I just mentioned that if a house takes a cut this is a form of regulated commercial gambling, distinct from social gambling.

There's a body of legislation and legal precedent that actually defines gambling and how that's distinct from markets.

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

#63

Post by slg »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #50
slg wrote: 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.

What proof do you have that there is a difference between the Team Red and Team Blue, other than your not on the team you’re railing against. For example, given Nancy Pelosi’s effectiveness as an investor, she was effectively a highly successful day trader with a side hustle as a representative of her constituents. Framing this as a Left v Right, is at best, naive.

>What proof do you have that there is a difference between the Team Red and Team Blue...Framing this as a Left v Right, is at best, naive.

You're responding to a comment that explicitly said I wasn't doing that. This is not Left vs Right, it's Trump vs everyone else.

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

#64

Post by jmyeet »

The Kalshi CEO should put their considerable wealth into bets on Kalshi that this will happen. I'll wait.

We have a situation where selective prosecution is used to command loyalty while the ringleader has been immunized from any kind of legal consequences by the Supreme Court, 6 of whom were appointed by said ringleader. Pardons are pretty openly sold now. It's cheaper to rip off the government then pay a fraction for a pardon, erasing any fine or repayment.

I bet there are lower level staffers who are profiting off inside information on prediction markets. Maybe some will be made an example of. I won't hold my breath.

But all the big insider trading is occurring in securities markets, particularly with oil futures and SPY futures. It's reached the point where no professionals trust the futre oil prices at all and and the physical oil prices differ from the future price by as much as $60/barrel. We've had $1b+ bets on SPY futures minutes before market-changing news. We don't know for sure who's doing this but my guess is that it's at the highest levels of the administration.

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

#65

Post by Karrot_Kream »

teeklp wrote: post #33
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er it's not. Gambling where the house takes a cut is considered a form of commercial gambling and is often made illegal or has stipulations applied to it. If you're asking about why prediction markets fall under the CFTC, this is actively evolving but generally prediction markets are considered to be under the CFTC because they can be used to hedge against events. For example if you're trying to do business in Oman b…

This is gibberish.

You're not providing actionable feedback.

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

#66

Post by akio »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #50
slg wrote: 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.

What proof do you have that there is a difference between the Team Red and Team Blue, other than your not on the team you’re railing against. For example, given Nancy Pelosi’s effectiveness as an investor, she was effectively a highly successful day trader with a side hustle as a representative of her constituents. Framing this as a Left v Right, is at best, naive.

Trump's second-term clemencies so far have forgiven criminal debts of more than $1.5 billion. That's over 2,000x the amount amount eliminated by Biden's pardons ($680,000).

These pardons go to convicted criminals who have ties to Trump and his administration, or who have donated significant sums to Trump.

It is very obvious the current administrating is the most corrupt administration in modern history by several orders of magnitude.

https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches

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

#67

Post by pwillia7 »

maplant wrote: post #26
pwillia7 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when have we ever defined gaming/gambling as 'a thing where the house takes a rake' ? I don't understand this argument and it always feels disingenuous when brought up.

I'm not really sure what position you're taking but taking a rake can certainly change the legality of an activity; in California, playing poker in private is considered a social game and is legal, _except_ if party is taking a rake.

yeah a social _game_, not a commodity pork bellies futures market.

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

#68

Post by kasey_junk »

c7b wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: 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…

Where do you see a difference? Like you said, there is a libertarian argument that can be made for why insider trading is desirable. If the bet is easily manipulable, like how many times someone will visit a place, then the rational response is for others not to bet on that market. The same argument still holds. You can disagree with the libertarian argument, but I don't see how you can say that Polymarket et al. are…

It’s not a libertarian argument for prediction markets that they should have insider trading, it’s the point of the exercise. The way they work is to incentivize people with knowledge to externalize the knowledge to the market. The concept of fairness doesn’t even make sense in that context.

So if a market is trying to maintain a veneer of fairness it’s just using a prediction market as cover and is something else.

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

#69

Post by mcmcmc »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #47
mcmcmc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because the law protects members of Congress, not >people close to the administration.

I think it’s naive to pretend they haven’t been doing the same thing all along. The Trump admin simply has more options available to them with crypto and prediction markets. And their egos are too big to bother doing it quietly.

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

#70

Post by hackingonempty »

idle_zealot wrote: post #59
hackingonempty wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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?

No, in the USA the pardon power belongs to the President. Only a constitutional amendment could invalidate pardons.

Post reply on HN