Hacker News

points by superxpro12 5 days ago | 0 comments

kalshi and polymarket are quite obvious gambling sites. any pedantic arguments to the contrary are strictly financial chaff to enhance their operating margins until the regulations finally catch up.

they were never an innovating marketing play... it was the culmination of a gambling company committing to regulatory capture as evinced by Donald Trump Jr (totally not) sitting on BOTH BOARDS as a "paid strategic advisor" or whatever lie they want to spin.

[–] MSFT_Edging 5 days ago

There are ads on the DC Metro right now that advertise one of these as a source of truth for election polling. The poster says something like "98% accuracy" and in super fine print, specifies something like "within 2 hours of polls closing" and other normal fine print stuff.

To me it's absolutely crazy that the "gamble on anything" apps are being advertised as some kind of polling software. I've already seen at least one race called into question because the gamblers bet on the wrong pony.

They're pure corruption engines designed for insider betting. The top brass of these companies need to be made example of.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

this is an answerable question and these markets are generally well calibrated (including on election outcomes), they have a good brier score.

i would not premise an anti-prediction market argument on their accuracy being bad, you are building on shaky foundations. the better argument is the paternalist protecting stupid people from themselves imo.

[–] red-iron-pine 5 days ago

> They're pure corruption engines designed for insider betting. The top brass of these companies need to be made example of.

is there any surprise then that Trumps are on the boards of both?

[–] boscillator 5 days ago

I've seen those and they are crazy! Many elections are decided by the primary anyway, and then of course exit polls are going to be basically accurate 2 hours before the election. It's not even that fine print, I think they may actually just be stupid.

[–] austin-cheney 5 days ago

The LDS church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), which is also based in Utah has provided explicit guidance against participation in Kalshi and Polymarket as gambling.

Here is their official stance on gambling: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...

I am not sure how much, if any, impact or influence this has had on Utah law.

[–] jboggan 5 days ago

They absolutely have been the main force behind the timing of this push. It was the main topic of General Conference a few weeks ago and one of the most eyebrow-raising articulations of official church policy.

Given the way that the church has explicitly encouraged state legislators to shoot down recent laws it's not surprising to think they'd be pushing for this.

[–] pchristensen 5 days ago

To be clear, it was one talk out of ~30, not the main topic. But the talk (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference...) was unusually direct and stood out among the more common, often repeated topics like faith, temples, etc.

[–] Shared404 4 days ago

It has also been the talk that I've seen the most discussion about in both faithful and non-faithful circles.

Also it's the only time I've seen nonaffiliated news articles about a statement the church has made about a topic other than lgbtq rights or abortion - notably much more politicized topics in general. That may be due to my own inattentiveness however.

All that to say that calling it "the main topic" is incorrect in technicality, but not in impact imo.

[–] Shared404 5 days ago

> Given the way that the church has explicitly encouraged state legislators to shoot down recent laws it's not surprising to think they'd be pushing for this.

And the way they've influenced voters in Idaho and Arizona recently.

[–] bobtheborg 5 days ago

I thought it worth posting the stance for those not willing to click

... Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior’s teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.

Those who participate in gambling soon discover the deception in the idea that they can give little or nothing and receive something of value in return. They find that they give up large amounts of money, their own honor, and the respect of family members and friends. Deceived and addicted, they often gamble with funds they should use for other purposes, such as meeting the basic needs of their families. Gamblers sometimes become so enslaved and so desperate to pay gambling debts that they turn to stealing, giving up their own good name.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

Also "Utah is one of only two states where gambling is also prohibited under the state constitution"

[–] gottorf 5 days ago

Funnily enough, Hawaii is the other one. Three more states also do not have lotteries.

[–] lotsofpulp 5 days ago

Washington State constitution, article 2, section 24 originally banned lotteries too:

https://leg.wa.gov/state-laws-and-rules/washington-state-con...

>SECTION 24. LOTTERIES AND DIVORCE

>The legislature shall never grant any divorce. Lotteries shall be prohibited except as specifically authorized upon the affirmative vote of sixty percent of the members of each house of the legislature or, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, by referendum or initiative approved by a sixty percent affirmative vote of the electors voting thereon. [AMENDMENT 56, 1971 Senate Joint Resolution No. 5, p 1828. Approved November 7, 1972.]

>NOTES: Original text — Art. 2 Section 24 LOTTERIES AND DIVORCE — The legislature shall never authorize any lottery or grant any divorce.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

Hm, I could get behind that in California

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

You get organized crime fillin.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

Don't care, also doesn't seem to be a problem in Utah

[–] zbentley 5 days ago

Like it did in Utah and Hawai’i?

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

I'm saying you would in California.

[–] sosborn 4 days ago

LDS is pretty strong here, and have historically been the ones opposing legalization efforts.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

Ehh I wouldn't try to appeal too much to what the LDS church thinks about this. They require members to give 10% of their annual income to the church, while already having close to $300 billion in the bank.

Everyone knows the state of Utah is largely run by the church.

[–] Shared404 5 days ago

> Everyone knows the state of Utah is largely run by the church.

Surprisingly few people know this ime. It's worth pointing out as one of the few areas [0] where the church has as much pull as its members think it does.

While I wouldn't look to the church as a bastion of morality for So Many Reasons, it's worth looking at a hard example of how it is able to manipulate politics in Utah, and by extension nationwide.

[0] Other areas worth being aware of are Idaho and parts of Arizona of course.

[–] wredcoll 5 days ago

If the state of utah is run by the church, then presumably if the church wants to ban kalshi, it's going to matter.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

The point isn't to appeal, right? Just speculate on whether the church is the reason for this.

[–] derektank 5 days ago

I don’t see the clear difference between something like Kalshi and, say, Robinhood. I do see a clear difference between Kalshi and casinos or sports gambling sites like Fan Duel; in the latter, your counterparty is the institution itself. This creates a lot of perverse incentives on the part of sports gambling sites to maintain their edge, such as banning bettors that are too good at playing the odds. Kalshi, on the other hand, is never your counterparty in any transaction.

Now, Robinhood is a brokerage, regulated by FINRA, and has been fined for misbehavior in the past. So I am more than willing to believe that there is daylight here that I’m not seeing. But anything that lets you speculate attracts a certain clientele, and I think the most important distinction is whether or not the platform itself is an interested party.

[–] mcmcmc 5 days ago

If the differentiating factor is just who you’re betting against, how are Kalshi et al any different from online poker? It’s still gambling, the house just takes a rake

[–] omilu 5 days ago

Because you can easily collude and cheat at poker so it needs to be heavily regulated or outright illegal to prevent theft. You can't really cheat at prediction markets, unless you have insider information which they can litigate after the fact.

[–] mcmcmc 5 days ago

Surely you’re being facetious, insider trading is obviously a huge problem that is rarely enforced and we’ve already seen instances of people actively influencing events or using false information to fake the result of a bet

[–] drugstorecowboy 3 days ago

How can you collude and cheat at poker? If there are 4 people playing, and 3 of them "collude", its litterally no different than one person just playing 3 hands at once which shouldn't make any difference. The fact that you would win more hands is offset by the big losses you would take when the 4th person wins.

[–] foltik 3 days ago

The edge comes from seeing more cards. That gives you better information than your opponent about who's ahead, meaning both your raises and folds have higher EV than theirs.

[–] drugstorecowboy 3 days ago

Oh thank you I hadn't considered that. After commenting I realized that I had never seen anyone play multiple hands. This is why.

[–] JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

> You can't really cheat at prediction markets

Lots of folks gripe about how Kalshi adjudicates contracts.

[–] cowlevel 4 days ago

The one I remember is from Polymatket, about whether Trump would end the Gaza war by a certain date. I bet no, and it resolved to yes on the basis that Trump said that he ended the war.

[–] derektank 5 days ago

I agree that whether the house has a stake in the outcome is (probably, I haven’t read the statute) not relevant to the definition of what is and is not gambling under Utah state law. Online Poker is very obviously a game though in a way that Kalshi and online brokerages aren’t (even if they share game like elements, such as random rewards). Important to caveat that prediction markets do allow you to speculate on the outcomes of games occurring off the platform, and maybe that is the distinction here between Kalshi and Robinhood, but then is Kalshi still “obviously” a gambling site if they ban markets on sports outcomes but leave everything else?

[–] mcmcmc 4 days ago

If they ban markets on sports outcomes they lose 90% of their business

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

If Kalshi is not a gambling operation then it is an unregulated futures market, which is still illegal. There are perverse incentives in futures markets too, which is why they are regulated.

Also speculators serve an important purpose: hedging strategies require speculators on the other side. It is not just a "certain clientele," there are people who run profitable businesses on speculation (it amounts to collecting insurance premiums from people who want hedges).

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

You're posting this all over the site but Kalshi is very clearly a licensed futures market regulated by the CFTC

[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago

> Kalshi is very clearly a licensed futures market regulated by the CFTC

As an excluded commodity. Based on the CFTC's own rule making. Based on this logic the SEC can go back to deciding it gets to regulate anything as securities fraud.

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

How is that at all clear? They are likely subject to CFTC regulations but there are a lot of questions about whether or not they are in compliance.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

Describing an organization with a license from the CFTC as an "unregulated futures market" is just flat wrong, I'm not really sure why you're motte-baileying here.

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

They offer contracts that are almost certainly outside the scope of regulation, an appeals court has already ruled that some of their contracts are indeed subject to state laws and not CFTC regulation, and they are continuing to push the envelope. How is it wrong to call them an unregulated market under the circumstances?

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

Because they are subject to a regulator and hold a license from a regulator.

[–] mcmcmc 4 days ago

“Regulated by the CFTC” is a bit of an oxymoron when they don’t do any real enforcement

[–] lkey 4 days ago

Oh word? what specific commodity is being traded?

The CFTC was created to hedge real risk. Onions iirc?

Kalshi creates risk where there was none before. The 'future' on the 'commodity' of 'number of dunks by an aging shaq at a halftime show'.

Courts have taken the dimmest possible view of this legal fabrication and I expect their losses in courts to continue without direct intervention by the Trump scions.

[–] jakeydus 4 days ago

People will say (including in this thread) that it allows them to hedge against negative outcomes. What negative outcomes are experienced by someone hedging against whether LeBron flies his helicopter to practice or not?

[–] sire-vc 4 days ago

Helicopter repair companies?

[–] jakeydus 4 days ago

Damn.

[–] Projectiboga 5 days ago

Robinhood is regulated under the SEC and other regulatory bodies and keeps "paper trails" of the trades.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

and Kalshi is regulated on the CFTC as it is not an securities market that the SEC regulates.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

Besides the brokerage being regulated, stock markets are regulated.

[–] calvinmorrison 5 days ago

basically, does the government have its thumb on the scale makes it legal. Gambling is so bad and illegal, except when the pennsylvania lottery does it. Alcohol, bad and illegal, except when the state monopoly sells it.

[–] kube-system 5 days ago

There are very good reasons that gambling and financial markets are regulated.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

Yep. Hope they kill Kalshi.

[–] walthamstow 5 days ago

Devices that broadcast wifi illegal except when the FCC says so. Damn government with their thumb on the scales.

[–] toyg 5 days ago

That's such a poor argument. Illegal building is bad because it's illegal; illegal gambling is bad because it's illegal. This is just how laws work. Heck, in the US even homicide is bad because it's illegal, when you consider that there is a legal version of it.

[–] mahboi 4 days ago

Penalty for homicide is homicide

[–] verdverm 5 days ago

It's really the worst of both combined. There is ample gambling like options and behavior on Kalshi

policy makers, assistants, journalists, and the like are insider trading - and the president of the united states is intentionally market manipulating for profit

[–] mcmcmc 4 days ago

90% of trade volume on Kalshi is sports betting

[–] seki285 5 days ago

A week ago if you dared to say anything critical of polymarket you would be drowned out in replies talking about the "wonderful societal benefits" of gambling on daily life and how it "informs decision making" and helps the "common people".

[–] red-iron-pine 5 days ago

51% or more of social media is automated.

Bots Rule Everything Around Me BREAM dollar dollar bill yall.

like, of course the gambling halls drop big money on online marketing

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

I liked it for political races as an alternative to polls. Was terrible for several other things. 99% of it was really just sports betting, which I can't see being a good thing.

[–] baggachipz 5 days ago

The genie's way out of the bottle with sports betting. Nonstop ads, branding tie-ins, billboards, podcast ads, on and on.

And it's terrible and going to destroy sports.

[–] kube-system 5 days ago

We don't need more financial incentive to influence the outcome of elections, there's already enough as it is.

[–] rbanffy 5 days ago

> I liked it for political races as an alternative to polls.

With enough funds, smaller political races can be gamed.

[–] mahboi 5 days ago

Yeah that too, so only the big ones. Obviously the law can't distinguish since it's all the same kind of gambling.

[–] rbanffy 4 days ago

The law can always distinguish the intent, which might be hard to prove, but not impossible. For instance, a PAC making large bets would raise a lot of suspicion. One Brazilian fugitive currently in the US has injected about a billion dollars in the form of bets on a Brazilian betting company, and that has caught regulators' attention.

[–] nilamo 5 days ago

What in the revisionist history? Polymarket has been getting shit on here since it debuted.

[–] freejazz 5 days ago

Not really. I can recall countless threads where everyone said that this improves information availability. Do you want me to go through my post history to find them?

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

you must be from an alternate timeline