7 ms·

> Before Kalshi, markets that allowed you to trade on economically relevant events were illegal or unregulated. Totally untrue. PredictIt was legal and regulat

> Before Kalshi, markets that allowed you to trade on economically relevant events were illegal or unregulated. Totally untrue. PredictIt was legal and regulated and well-loved for many years, operating with the permission of the CFTC under a no-action letter. Then Kalshi hired former CFTC commissioner Brian Quintenz and soon, PredictIt was suddenly deemed by the CFTC to have committed still-unenumerated violations of the no-action letter. This is a rotten way to do business and shame on YC for being involved in it. https://karlstack.substack.com/p/a-textbook-case-of-regulatory-capture https://karlstack.substack.com/p/a-textbook-case-of-regulato...

orangepurple 4y ago
Buying out the regulators and making competition illegal is the moat YC needed to invest
- dang 4y ago
  I have no knowledge about this particular case but that is absolutely not how YC operates or thinks about its business. I've never heard a single comment from anyone at YC along such lines. I'm not moderating this subthread the way we normally would*, but IMO you guys should be more scrupulous about posting snarky smears. * because https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (edit: for anyone wondering, I didn't flag the GP comment)
  - species9606 4y ago
    “I have no knowledge about this particular case” Respectfully, I think you should have stopped there, or perhaps earlier. There is quite a body of evidence already provided in this thread suggesting that Kalshi is an anticompetitive regulatory-capture play.
    - ghufran_syed 4y ago
      perhaps you could post said evidence?
      - species9606 4y ago
        I added an edit, indicating that this thread already has quite a bit of it.
    - dang 4y ago
      The GP comment was specifically a smear about YC, which is something I do have knowledge about. I don't for a moment believe that YC would invest in "buying out regulators and making competition illegal". That would go against everything I have ever heard, in public or in private, and everything I understand YC to be about. Just because we moderate HN less when YC or a YC-funded startup is part of a story does not mean I won't respond like a normal human being.
  - tmansour 4y ago
    +1 on this. This is not how any of us operate. Regulation in this space is really tough and thorough - we've been battling through it for years now (also explains why this post is coming so long after the end of our batch!).
    - Lionga 4y ago
      The facts presented above make your company look very shady, and this answer is not clearing up anything. Like this most people will have to assume you really just paid off / bribed Brian Quintenz.
      - tmansour 4y ago
        this insider article should clear up a few things! https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-inside-look https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-i...
        Lionga 4y ago
        It's paywalled and you not wanting to say anything yourself just smells bad
        livueta 4y ago
        Indeed. Why not take up Scott Alexander's proposal if there truly is nothing untoward here? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 > If someone from Kalshi wants to swear, in so many words, “We promise we put no effort into convincing CFTC to quash PredictIt”, I will believe them (although I would still suspect the CFTC was following a thought process like “now that Kalshi exists it would be embarrassing to let less-regulated markets exist alongside it”). Until then, I think cui bono remains the right question. Here's your chance, 'tmansour: if you didn't do anything wrong, why not say so yourself? I have no horse in this race or involvement with either party at all; I'm just interested because this feels like quite the betrayal of the usual ethos we'd expect from YC affiliation, and your responses on the topic so far are evasive enough to be a red flag in and of themselves.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  Maybe not YC -- that's a strange thesis for seed money -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this strategy flowed from Sequoia; not as a primary investment thesis, or even the primary reason for bribing* a former regulator, but rather as a happy side pot payout. * Yes, the revolving door is bribery-by-any-other-name. Anger at this type of legalized overt corruption of our institutions is literally ripping the country apart.
  - thecoppinger 4y ago
    Right on—this is my take, too.
lacker 4y ago
I think it's unfair to jump to the conclusion that Kalshi is to blame for regulators banning PredictIt. From the link you posted, PredictIt promised the regulators they would: * be small-scale and not-for-profit * be operated for academic and research purposes only It doesn't really say what "small-scale" means, but obviously, if PredictIt keeps being successful and growing, eventually they will no longer be small scale. PredictIt was always in a situation where they had to make a different deal with regulators, eventually, as long as they continued to grow. If you want to blame the CFTC for shutting down PredictIt, Intrade, all of those other prediction markets, then yeah, I agree! I wish they had just been much more permissive long ago. We should blame the CFTC for being too strict. But it doesn't seem fair to blame Kalshi just because they might be the ones to finally convince the regulators to allow one of these. I hope Kalshi is the group to figure this out, make prediction markets popular, and that prediction markets can finally get the attention from wider society that they deserve.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  What a ridiculous regulatory decision. They have to be "small scale?" So it's ok for anybody to do it, but if too many people actually do it, then no one is allowed to anymore.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thecoppinger 4y ago
  I went deep doing research on prediction markets a few months ago, and no, it's not an unfair conclusion. Brian Quintenz is a Republican financial manager who was nominated to be a commissioner of the CFTC by Trump in 2017.[1] During his time at the CFTC, as I recall, there was heavy bipartisan action, which he was praised for. Well, there's a slightly more cynical take that he was indeed completely crooked. My memory is foggy, and I don't have time to grab sources just yet as I have a meeting coming up so I'll update this shortly, but he was then turfed out of the CFTC under Biden and promptly hired by Kalshi. Given his record, it's less of a jump to see what Kalshi is doing as shady, but more of a smoking gun... PredicIt, which had been operating under a no action letter (NAL) from the CFTC since 2014 just happened to have that letter withdrawn a few months after Kalshi raises $30m at a Series A to take their platform live.[2] From my point of view, this is classic American lobbying mafia style stuff. Prediction markets have been prevented from flourishing for decades, and now that the time has arrived, the crooked CFTC et al have cleaned the house so their chosen startup that they're deeply in bed with can thrive. The whole thing, quite frankly, stinks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Quintenz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Quintenz [2] https://www.pymnts.com/news/international/2022/millions-committed-to-green-tech-circular-economy-initiatives-as-cop27-ends/ https://www.pymnts.com/news/international/2022/millions-comm...
tmansour 4y ago
This article had a bunch of interesting insider info on what went down (most of it was news to me as well): https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-inside-look https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-i...
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Hard paywall. Can you archive it and post a link?
Lordarminius 4y ago
Wow ! .. :)
NoboruWataya 4y ago
Without more detail this just sounds like a conspiracy theory. Hiring a former regulator is way too weak a link to conclude that Kalshi are pulling the strings at the current regulator. If PI were operating on the basis of a no action letter they were unregulated pretty much by definition. A no action letter is basically a regulator saying that it won't take action against a market participant for doing things that would otherwise merit regulatory action. (I'm not affiliated with any of these parties, just going by what I read in the comments and the various publications from CFTC.)
- lapestenoire 4y ago
  That is not what a no action letter is.
ruuda 4y ago
Scott Alexander did a post on it too: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522
ghufran_syed 4y ago
How is a non-profit trade-size limited prediction market in any way a competitor for Kalshi? And predictit will have its day in court [1] where both sides will actually need to present evidence, unlike on an internet forum [1] https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/10/06/2530020/0/en/Additional-Plaintiffs-Join-Predictit-Lawsuit-Against-CFTC.html https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/10/06/253...
- thecoppinger 4y ago
  > How is a non-profit trade-size limited prediction market in any way a competitor for Kalshi? Because it was one of the longest running and largest prediction markets to ever exist. > trade-size limited Kalshi is trade-size limited, too.
  - mbrubeck 4y ago
    Specifically, PredictIt limits positions to $850, while Kalshi limits them to $25,000. Which is definitely a significant difference, but still seems too small for cases like tmansour’s motivating example (“providing institutions with exposure to, or a hedge against, Brexit”). Though I guess it depends; if you bet $25,000 on a 99:1 long shot, then your position could be worth $2.5 million if it pays off. (PredictIt also limits each market to 5000 participants, while as far as I can tell Kalshi has no such limit.)
weixiyen 4y ago
I think they did the same to Polymarket in the US.
ricardobayes 4y ago
Not only that, but at least in the UK, bookmakers take bets for newsworthy events. (Like elections)

orangepurple 4y ago

Buying out the regulators and making competition illegal is the moat YC needed to invest

dang 4y ago
I have no knowledge about this particular case but that is absolutely not how YC operates or thinks about its business. I've never heard a single comment from anyone at YC along such lines. I'm not moderating this subthread the way we normally would*, but IMO you guys should be more scrupulous about posting snarky smears. * because https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20%22less%2C%20not%20more%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... (edit: for anyone wondering, I didn't flag the GP comment)
- species9606 4y ago
  “I have no knowledge about this particular case” Respectfully, I think you should have stopped there, or perhaps earlier. There is quite a body of evidence already provided in this thread suggesting that Kalshi is an anticompetitive regulatory-capture play.
  - ghufran_syed 4y ago
    perhaps you could post said evidence?
    - species9606 4y ago
      I added an edit, indicating that this thread already has quite a bit of it.
  - dang 4y ago
    The GP comment was specifically a smear about YC, which is something I do have knowledge about. I don't for a moment believe that YC would invest in "buying out regulators and making competition illegal". That would go against everything I have ever heard, in public or in private, and everything I understand YC to be about. Just because we moderate HN less when YC or a YC-funded startup is part of a story does not mean I won't respond like a normal human being.
- tmansour 4y ago
  +1 on this. This is not how any of us operate. Regulation in this space is really tough and thorough - we've been battling through it for years now (also explains why this post is coming so long after the end of our batch!).
  - Lionga 4y ago
    The facts presented above make your company look very shady, and this answer is not clearing up anything. Like this most people will have to assume you really just paid off / bribed Brian Quintenz.
    - tmansour 4y ago
      this insider article should clear up a few things! https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-inside-look https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-i...
      - Lionga 4y ago
        It's paywalled and you not wanting to say anything yourself just smells bad
        livueta 4y ago
        Indeed. Why not take up Scott Alexander's proposal if there truly is nothing untoward here? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 > If someone from Kalshi wants to swear, in so many words, “We promise we put no effort into convincing CFTC to quash PredictIt”, I will believe them (although I would still suspect the CFTC was following a thought process like “now that Kalshi exists it would be embarrassing to let less-regulated markets exist alongside it”). Until then, I think cui bono remains the right question. Here's your chance, 'tmansour: if you didn't do anything wrong, why not say so yourself? I have no horse in this race or involvement with either party at all; I'm just interested because this feels like quite the betrayal of the usual ethos we'd expect from YC affiliation, and your responses on the topic so far are evasive enough to be a red flag in and of themselves.
thwayunion 4y ago
Maybe not YC -- that's a strange thesis for seed money -- but it wouldn't surprise me if this strategy flowed from Sequoia; not as a primary investment thesis, or even the primary reason for bribing* a former regulator, but rather as a happy side pot payout. * Yes, the revolving door is bribery-by-any-other-name. Anger at this type of legalized overt corruption of our institutions is literally ripping the country apart.
- thecoppinger 4y ago
  Right on—this is my take, too.

lacker 4y ago

I think it's unfair to jump to the conclusion that Kalshi is to blame for regulators banning PredictIt. From the link you posted, PredictIt promised the regulators they would: * be small-scale and not-for-profit * be operated for academic and research purposes only It doesn't really say what "small-scale" means, but obviously, if PredictIt keeps being successful and growing, eventually they will no longer be small scale. PredictIt was always in a situation where they had to make a different deal with regulators, eventually, as long as they continued to grow. If you want to blame the CFTC for shutting down PredictIt, Intrade, all of those other prediction markets, then yeah, I agree! I wish they had just been much more permissive long ago. We should blame the CFTC for being too strict. But it doesn't seem fair to blame Kalshi just because they might be the ones to finally convince the regulators to allow one of these. I hope Kalshi is the group to figure this out, make prediction markets popular, and that prediction markets can finally get the attention from wider society that they deserve.

fallingknife 4y ago
What a ridiculous regulatory decision. They have to be "small scale?" So it's ok for anybody to do it, but if too many people actually do it, then no one is allowed to anymore.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thecoppinger 4y ago
I went deep doing research on prediction markets a few months ago, and no, it's not an unfair conclusion. Brian Quintenz is a Republican financial manager who was nominated to be a commissioner of the CFTC by Trump in 2017.[1] During his time at the CFTC, as I recall, there was heavy bipartisan action, which he was praised for. Well, there's a slightly more cynical take that he was indeed completely crooked. My memory is foggy, and I don't have time to grab sources just yet as I have a meeting coming up so I'll update this shortly, but he was then turfed out of the CFTC under Biden and promptly hired by Kalshi. Given his record, it's less of a jump to see what Kalshi is doing as shady, but more of a smoking gun... PredicIt, which had been operating under a no action letter (NAL) from the CFTC since 2014 just happened to have that letter withdrawn a few months after Kalshi raises $30m at a Series A to take their platform live.[2] From my point of view, this is classic American lobbying mafia style stuff. Prediction markets have been prevented from flourishing for decades, and now that the time has arrived, the crooked CFTC et al have cleaned the house so their chosen startup that they're deeply in bed with can thrive. The whole thing, quite frankly, stinks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Quintenz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Quintenz [2] https://www.pymnts.com/news/international/2022/millions-committed-to-green-tech-circular-economy-initiatives-as-cop27-ends/ https://www.pymnts.com/news/international/2022/millions-comm...

tmansour 4y ago

This article had a bunch of interesting insider info on what went down (most of it was news to me as well): https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-inside-look https://www.capitolaccountdc.com/p/gambling-on-politics-an-i...

fallingknife 4y ago
Hard paywall. Can you archive it and post a link?

Lordarminius 4y ago

Wow ! .. :)

NoboruWataya 4y ago

Without more detail this just sounds like a conspiracy theory. Hiring a former regulator is way too weak a link to conclude that Kalshi are pulling the strings at the current regulator. If PI were operating on the basis of a no action letter they were unregulated pretty much by definition. A no action letter is basically a regulator saying that it won't take action against a market participant for doing things that would otherwise merit regulatory action. (I'm not affiliated with any of these parties, just going by what I read in the comments and the various publications from CFTC.)

lapestenoire 4y ago
That is not what a no action letter is.

ruuda 4y ago

Scott Alexander did a post on it too: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-81522

ghufran_syed 4y ago

How is a non-profit trade-size limited prediction market in any way a competitor for Kalshi? And predictit will have its day in court [1] where both sides will actually need to present evidence, unlike on an internet forum [1] https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/10/06/2530020/0/en/Additional-Plaintiffs-Join-Predictit-Lawsuit-Against-CFTC.html https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/10/06/253...

thecoppinger 4y ago
> How is a non-profit trade-size limited prediction market in any way a competitor for Kalshi? Because it was one of the longest running and largest prediction markets to ever exist. > trade-size limited Kalshi is trade-size limited, too.
- mbrubeck 4y ago
  Specifically, PredictIt limits positions to $850, while Kalshi limits them to $25,000. Which is definitely a significant difference, but still seems too small for cases like tmansour’s motivating example (“providing institutions with exposure to, or a hedge against, Brexit”). Though I guess it depends; if you bet $25,000 on a 99:1 long shot, then your position could be worth $2.5 million if it pays off. (PredictIt also limits each market to 5000 participants, while as far as I can tell Kalshi has no such limit.)

weixiyen 4y ago

I think they did the same to Polymarket in the US.

ricardobayes 4y ago

Not only that, but at least in the UK, bookmakers take bets for newsworthy events. (Like elections)