Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • everyone's anger is warranted.

    does CTFC have mandate to enforce things nationally - yeah. Does NY have a mandate to stop thing nationwide NO.

    however the murkiness with the whole thing is about corruption and having friends, sons of the president as your backers etc - proper procedures are no longer followed.

    by dzonga
  • Here is something to bet on

    https://www.ncsl.org/financial-services/prediction-markets-2...

    Would Kalshi allow people to bet on whether Kalshi will be banned in a particular state

    by 1vuio0pswjnm7
  • An order to _continue_ operation? Has that ever happened before?
    by denkmoon
  • If you're a market maker? It's the whole job. They're Federally regulated to do precisely that.
    by msandford
  • It's not an order to Kalshi to continue operations. They overrode the TRO from the state court. The target of the order is the state court / executive, essentially saying "You cannot halt Kalshi's operations via the TRO".
    by akerl_
  • This seems correct, even though I think it's unfortunate that these prediction markets are ruining so many people's lives.

    > In the lawsuit, filed on July 31, New York seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting KalshiEX, LLC from offering all event contracts nationwide and more than $36 billion in damages.

    This seems naturally the territory of the CFTC. They have exclusive right to regulate futures and derivatives contracts, which Congress handed them. Also, it seems straightforwardly anti-commerce-clause to allow NY to prohibit Kalshi from offering these contracts nationwide.

    by arjie
  • Your quote is what the CFTC is claiming, not what NY is actually asking for.

    Your mistake is trusting that a federal agency will tell the truth when the president or his family has a financial interest. Hint: they will not.

    by amanaplanacanal
  • > said Chairman Michael S. Selig. “Congress did not intend for derivatives exchanges to be regulated under a patchwork of state gaming laws.

    Ah yes, "derivatives" which are "not intended to fall under gaming laws" such as... *checks Kalshi website* 58 million dollars riding on which team is the 2027 NFL champion.

    Oh yeah, totally a financial derivative there, not related to gambling at all. *sigh*

    by Terr_
  • ELI5 why it's better for you to place a $10,000 bet that, say, GOOG falls below $300 by February 2028, than to bet the same that the Pats win the Super Bowl? They're both gambling.
    by xp84
  • Totally a financial derivative for Mattress Mack, but probably not for the rest of us.
    by caleblloyd
  • See here, I’m just a poor NFL Championship farmer. Without these futures to give me some certainty around prices, it’s just too risky to plant these crops. You city folk think that NFL Championships grow in your fancy stadiums, and you never see all the work I put into feeding and watering all these athletes. It’s risky enough as it is, the crop can fail due to weather, or even something so small as Dave forgetting to wear his lucky socks when a game is on.
    by clickety_clack
  • Americans’ continued ability to gamble, err…, trade multi-leg parlays is a matter of national security!
    by impish9208
  • With “Chevron Deference” struck down, I assume this means the courts will get to decide if it is in fact gambling or not?
    by stock_toaster
  • I'm with the state of NY on the merits here. They're basically BetFair, and they should be subject to regulation like it.
    by rgmerk
  • Sadly for you, this SCOTUS is not a meritocracy.
    by tyre
  • Friends in high places are worth their weight in gold. Anyone want to bet on how much they weigh?
    by mavbo
  • I mean, officially 225, but does anyone believe that?

    (Which is a bit over $15M at today’s spot prices, by the by)

    by roughly
  • So the CFTC frames Kalshi as a financial derivatives exchange for the financial instrument category of event contracts, dismissing NYs characterization of it as a gambling/betting platform. Interesting.
    by pamcake
  • no, it frames it as a grift economy subsidy.
    by cyanydeez
  • Laws are for poor people
    by Pxtl
  • What exactly is the difference between a financial derivatives exchange and a gambling platform? Both involve placing bets on uncertain future outcomes.
    by pdonis
  • Am I reading this right? The state of New York wants Kalshi to stop offering prediction gambling, excuse me, "event contracts" in New York, and the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission just ordered Kalshi to keep operating in New York regardless?
    by decimalenough
  • Donald Trump Jr is a “strategic advisor” at Kalshi and was given equity in the company. Hope that helps.
    by paxys
  • Here is a link to a post about the State of New York's case: https://www.shb.com/intelligence/newsletters/securities-liti...

    I am not sure about how the state regulation of betting will turn out (though I would have guessed that it is indeed pre-empted), but the nationwide injunction seems shaky given Trump v Casa: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

    by nickff
  • Prediction gambling excuse me event contracts excuse me insider trading excuse me that’s the whole point of prediction markets
    by dogtorwoof
  • They did the same thing in Minnesota too. The state voted AGAINST this crap and the CFTC basically says its their jurisdiction and “no you have to allow gambling even if you don’t want it!!!”. DJTs son is on the board of or an advisor to Kalshi and Polymarket, tons of money and influence are bought into this grift. Their right to pillage the public and create a new generation of addicts is more important than what people want or what’s good for them.
    by zaptheimpaler
  • Yes. If you take Kalshi out of it, that’s exactly how the law is supposed to work.

    The State of New York does not have the power to compel NYSE to stop operating in New York either, irrespective of what laws NY passed, as that is with the SEC.

    They also can’t enforce a law saying companies in New York must file 10Qs every month or something. Again, federal.

    See: supremacy clause, interstate commerce. (The latter has been significantly expanded beyond its ordinary meaning for centuries; in here, the theory is that New Yorkers not being able to participate in a market ‘hurts’ other interstate market participants).

    by dannyw
  • EDIT: see DannyBee's comment below ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 ). It does look like the CFTC has extrapolated the "nationwide" out of either some novel interpretation of the filing or just entirely fabricated it as their justification for their action.

    I've got no love for Kalshi, but "orders Kalshi to continue operate in New York" doesn't seem to be present anywhere in the actual release.

    The article presents the sequence of events as:

    1. The State of NY files a lawsuit against Kalshi under the theory that it can be regulated by state gambling laws.

    2. The State of NY files for a temporary restraining order requiring Kalshi to halt trading nationally, not just in NY.

    3. Kalshi reaches out to the CFTC to claim that NY doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

    4. The CFTC agrees and uses their authority to override the TRO.

    That seems pretty aligned with how interstate commerce is regulated and managed in the US.

    by akerl_
  • 2 is false, actually.

    If you read the complaint, the prayer for relief is quite clear that they only are trying to stop them from operating in new york, deliberately offering gambling to new yorkers, etc.

    There is no relief requested nationwide.

    by DannyBee
  • I think the question is whether or not this is damaging to the case that the Kalshi and others could be regulated state by state..
    by Avicebron