I'll bite: futures contracts serve a valuable social/economic function outside of their existence, and are just a commoditization/securitization of something that arises naturally out of doing business (agreeing on a future price today). While you can gamble with futures contracts, the underlying purpose is actually incredibly useful.
Prediction betting has an argument that truth discovery is economically valuable, but I don't buy it.
If prediction betting was banned, only two businesses would be affected, Kalshi and Polymarket. If futures markets were banned, many businesses would be massively affected, and almost every business would be indirectly affected.
Probably without intending it you've gotten right to the heart of what's at dispute here.
The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts. Sometimes gambling is dressed up a speculating, but one could argue that one can speculate as a participant in many card games since they allow room for analysis and aren't pure chance. This is what the legal dispute comes down too.
The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.
>Probably without intending it you've gotten right to the heart of what's at dispute here.
Awfully rude.
>The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts.
No it doesn't. No one argues that state gambling laws actually regulate the trade of securities, options, or anything actually covered by the CFTC, so this is a completely sham argument.
>The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.
The value of truth discovery is completely irrelevant to these cases. Either congress intended to regulate sports gambling under the CFTC, or it didn't. The executive branch can't get around that.
Kalshi and Polymarket make money because they advertise themselves as legal gambling (I haven't done extensive research of this, but I do get alot of advertisements for them). Then they justify their existence as some sort of futures market.
This feels like a similar playbook to crypto. People make money through pump and dump schemes and/or luck/speculation. Then they justify their existence as some bastion of decentralized power/coordination.
That's really interesting. On another thread someone said something about health insurance related contracts like that was some kind of slippery slope bad outcome from allowing prediction markets. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but our health system is so broken I'll support anything that shakes up the status quo. I doubt Kalshi or Polymarket will turn in to that, but maybe they'll create a wedge for someone else to create a health event marketplaces.
I think a lot of folks here think I'm debating this because I support prediction markets, but I could have cared less which way SCOTUS comes down on this. Now I'm rooting for Kalshi when SCOTUS picks this up and not regretting the time I spent on this. I try to avoid commenting on anything political, but I had a moment of weakness while I was waiting for benchmarks to run. Thanks!
No, lol, their opinion did not reach that. The third circuit's opinion stated that we need clarity from congress as to whether or not sports gambling, and also "bingo" (not making that up) are actually covered by the CFTC. They just said that the statute preempts whatever state law could be on this issue, which is not the same thing as what you said would be ruling "the opposite" which would be that the outcome of a sports game is a financial event. That's obviously not true outside of the context of gambling. Unlike, say, everything that is actually regulated by the CFTC.
And this is what I've been trying to get at here... who can actually say with a straight face that congress intended to regulate sports gambling with the CFTC? It's a ridiculous proposition to which there are no actual facts that support it. Nothing in the congressional record, nothing in the statute. Just a broad reading of the language while keeping one's head in the sand.
The 3rd circuit literally said they are '"swaps" subject to the CFTC's jusridiction' which is literally the opposite of what the 9th circuit said. Thanks for making me use literally twice in the same sentence.
The reference to bingo was something that New Jersey and the dissent brought up. Direct quote that covers both:
'Because Kalshi’s sports related event contracts are traded on a CFTC-licensed DCM and depend on event outcomes associated with economic consequences, they fit within the Act’s definition of “swaps” subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(a)(1)(A), 1a(47)(A)(ii).
New Jersey and the dissent “pile inference upon inference” and postulate that anything from bingo games to pingpong matches will fall under the CFTC’s jurisdiction.'
> The reference to bingo was something that New Jersey and the dissent brought up
That the holding opinion addresses, quoting the same exact section you did and then going on to say that "[i]n such far-fetched scenarios, Congress’s express delegation to the CTFC and the Securities and Exchange Commission to 'further define' swaps would prove useful." So yeah, that exact point stands.
>The 3rd circuit literally said they are '"swaps" subject to the CFTC's jusridiction' which is literally the opposite of what the 9th circuit said.
No, the 3rd circuit literally said that the CFTC designated Kalshi a DCM, so therefore it must be the case that its sports events contracts fall under DCM event contracts regulated by the CFTC. This is much more limited than my construction of the 9th circuit holding, which you insisted this is the opposite of it.It's literally not. The 9th Circuit's holding goes much further than to say they aren't a DCM. It says that a sports event can't be an event contract under the CFTC, so it does not even matter if it is a DCM or not.
You had me thinking you read the opinions when you came with the quotes, but it seems like at the same kind of superficial level the 3rd circuit is playing around at here. The 9th Circuit's holding is much broader and addresses the fact that the DCM designation is basically a sham, and clearly well beyond whatever congress could have intended with the statute.
And it's funny that you act informed about this but are playing ignorant the politics of the Trump admin's cronyism with Kalshi and its sudden and unprecedented designation of it as a DCM. Resting in the shallow depth of the 3rd circuit's opinion isn't a good place to be when you really think about what that court represents. And do you really think the supreme court is going to say that the executive branch can decide what congress intended by making designations like that? Fat chance. There's nothing in the congressional record that could ever indicate an intent to give the CFTC power to preempt state sports gambling laws on an individual corporate basis by special designation.
I feel like you're just interested in this for the culture war politics of it and take up the law as a barb. You're just being rude up and down this thread with your intuitive arguments which are really just legal non sequiturs but you don't get that because you don't do actual legal analysis (which is fine, I see all sorts of analyses on this site that I can't do, I just read in those circumstances).
"same kind of superficial level the 3rd circuit is playing around at here" - as you believe you're more authorative than the 3rd circuit, rational debate is an impossibility
/ES futures are used to hedge an SPX position or speculate on SPX. SPX options are also cash settled.
I’m not going to allow you to depose me, if you want to know more about futures contracts, CME and CBOE publish information on all of their futures contracts.
A future is a contract to deliver a good at a time at a price. That's ordinary business. All of the scaffolding around futures contacts is at core built around buying and selling actual stuff. A pork future is an agreement to buy actual pork.
The event contract isn't tied to the delivery of a good or service.
I asked about option contracts not futures contracts. As to futures contracts there are many that are not associated with anything physical (e.g. stock indexes, bitcoin, US treasuries, etc.).
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
[–] dghlsakjg 4 days ago
Prediction betting has an argument that truth discovery is economically valuable, but I don't buy it.
If prediction betting was banned, only two businesses would be affected, Kalshi and Polymarket. If futures markets were banned, many businesses would be massively affected, and almost every business would be indirectly affected.
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts. Sometimes gambling is dressed up a speculating, but one could argue that one can speculate as a participant in many card games since they allow room for analysis and aren't pure chance. This is what the legal dispute comes down too.
The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
Awfully rude.
>The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts.
No it doesn't. No one argues that state gambling laws actually regulate the trade of securities, options, or anything actually covered by the CFTC, so this is a completely sham argument.
>The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.
The value of truth discovery is completely irrelevant to these cases. Either congress intended to regulate sports gambling under the CFTC, or it didn't. The executive branch can't get around that.
[–] santadays 4 days ago
This feels like a similar playbook to crypto. People make money through pump and dump schemes and/or luck/speculation. Then they justify their existence as some bastion of decentralized power/coordination.
[–] dzhiurgis 4 days ago
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
I think a lot of folks here think I'm debating this because I support prediction markets, but I could have cared less which way SCOTUS comes down on this. Now I'm rooting for Kalshi when SCOTUS picks this up and not regretting the time I spent on this. I try to avoid commenting on anything political, but I had a moment of weakness while I was waiting for benchmarks to run. Thanks!
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
And this is what I've been trying to get at here... who can actually say with a straight face that congress intended to regulate sports gambling with the CFTC? It's a ridiculous proposition to which there are no actual facts that support it. Nothing in the congressional record, nothing in the statute. Just a broad reading of the language while keeping one's head in the sand.
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
The reference to bingo was something that New Jersey and the dissent brought up. Direct quote that covers both: 'Because Kalshi’s sports related event contracts are traded on a CFTC-licensed DCM and depend on event outcomes associated with economic consequences, they fit within the Act’s definition of “swaps” subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(a)(1)(A), 1a(47)(A)(ii).
New Jersey and the dissent “pile inference upon inference” and postulate that anything from bingo games to pingpong matches will fall under the CFTC’s jurisdiction.'
from: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ka...
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
That the holding opinion addresses, quoting the same exact section you did and then going on to say that "[i]n such far-fetched scenarios, Congress’s express delegation to the CTFC and the Securities and Exchange Commission to 'further define' swaps would prove useful." So yeah, that exact point stands.
>The 3rd circuit literally said they are '"swaps" subject to the CFTC's jusridiction' which is literally the opposite of what the 9th circuit said.
No, the 3rd circuit literally said that the CFTC designated Kalshi a DCM, so therefore it must be the case that its sports events contracts fall under DCM event contracts regulated by the CFTC. This is much more limited than my construction of the 9th circuit holding, which you insisted this is the opposite of it.It's literally not. The 9th Circuit's holding goes much further than to say they aren't a DCM. It says that a sports event can't be an event contract under the CFTC, so it does not even matter if it is a DCM or not.
You had me thinking you read the opinions when you came with the quotes, but it seems like at the same kind of superficial level the 3rd circuit is playing around at here. The 9th Circuit's holding is much broader and addresses the fact that the DCM designation is basically a sham, and clearly well beyond whatever congress could have intended with the statute.
And it's funny that you act informed about this but are playing ignorant the politics of the Trump admin's cronyism with Kalshi and its sudden and unprecedented designation of it as a DCM. Resting in the shallow depth of the 3rd circuit's opinion isn't a good place to be when you really think about what that court represents. And do you really think the supreme court is going to say that the executive branch can decide what congress intended by making designations like that? Fat chance. There's nothing in the congressional record that could ever indicate an intent to give the CFTC power to preempt state sports gambling laws on an individual corporate basis by special designation.
I feel like you're just interested in this for the culture war politics of it and take up the law as a barb. You're just being rude up and down this thread with your intuitive arguments which are really just legal non sequiturs but you don't get that because you don't do actual legal analysis (which is fine, I see all sorts of analyses on this site that I can't do, I just read in those circumstances).
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
[–] quickthrowman 4 days ago
2) The CME copper futures contract (/HG) is also physically settled.
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
[–] quickthrowman 4 days ago
/ES futures are used to hedge an SPX position or speculate on SPX. SPX options are also cash settled.
I’m not going to allow you to depose me, if you want to know more about futures contracts, CME and CBOE publish information on all of their futures contracts.
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
Then I won't ask you what the difference is between speculation and gambling. Instead I'll just declare myself the winner of this debate.
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
[–] svpk 4 days ago
The event contract isn't tied to the delivery of a good or service.
[–] 15155 4 days ago
[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago