Hacker News
points by joshheitzman 4 days ago | 0 comments
Its right there on Kalshi's website: https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/13823765-how-is-kalshi-r...

Congress didn't identify the markets it was regulating by common names or trade names. It doesn't matter if its generally called a prediction market, a commodities market, or a futures exchange. What matters is if it qualifies as a Designated Contract Market as per https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-17/chapter-I/part-38 so if you want to actually have knowledge of what Congress said on this topic your going to have read all of that.

There is already a split decision on this between the 3rd and 9th circuits so it seems likely SCOTUS is going to take this up. I expect they'll be the ones deciding if this in the domain of the states or not. If they don't pick it up then its going to vary by circuit, such that it will be in the domain of some states and not others.

[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
> What matters is if it qualifies as a Designated Contract Market

DCMs are a creature of rule, not statute [1]. The statutes that animate it are the CFMA of 2000, Dodd-Frank "special rule" for event contracts and CEA § 5. The core question, whether the CFTC has the authority to regulate this kind of DCM, is still open.

> There is already a split decision on this between the 3rd and 9th circuits so it seems likely SCOTUS is going to take this up

Links to the split opinions?

[1] To be clear, DCMs are undefined in statute. DCMs are just referenced in other statute. Part 38 is an implementing regulation.

[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
> Links to the split opinions?

Seriously? That is easy to find, so I'm just going to skip past that to the petition to SCOTUS that references both: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-299/428759/2026...

[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
I mean, I love that write-up, but it's because I wholly agree with it.

If that's your only source, I'll rest my case–it make the argument cleanly.

[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
Honestly, I have no idea what case you are resting if you think a petition to SCOTUS to hear arguments to settle all of this means its already settled.

Its seems like there is literally nothing you will accept to show that this isn't settled yet.

[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago
I don’t think this is settled law—I never said that. I think the argument for this not being under CFTC and thus federal jurisdiction is clear. I’m curious for someone to show the other argument. If someone just shows me my own argument back, as you did, I’m going to assume that sort of settles your view on it.

To the extent I’m challenging anything above, you’ll see it’s in rejecting anyone claiming this is obvious or settled.

[–] joshheitzman 4 days ago
"if someone just shows me my own argument back, as you did" - makes crystal you didn't read substantive parts of the document as both arguments are literally in that document.
[–] freejazz 4 days ago
I pointed out how you did not seem to understand any of the judicial opinions at issue here and you took your ball home because I have the nerve to disagree with the 3rd circuit (so did the 9th circuit! and the 2nd is about to as well!). I'm following up on all your posts in this thread because you are incredibly rude to everyone while doing the same exact things you accuse them of.

Edit: 2nd circuit denied Kalshi's request for an injunction against NY's enforcement. So yeah... I think I'm within pretty good grounds to reasonably disagree with the 3rd circuit.

[–] gamblor956 4 days ago
That's farcical on its face.

Predictions aren't swaps as defined by federal law. If they were, the term "swap" would be so broad that every transaction and exchange of value in the world would be within the CFTC's jurisdiction, excluding those the CEA gives to the SEC.

The only reason the prediction market hasn't already been shut down is because multiple members of the president's family are heavily invested in the industry.