[TZubiri]

Predictions markets are more regulated than sports betting, because the events being predicted are wider, so they will naturally touch on a whole lot more regulation.

For example, can someone place a bet on an event that X person will be shot? That question now touches on a whole range of laws regarding murder, life insurance, incitation to violence, free speech? That you just don't touch at all in sports betting.

[niwtsol]

I read your statement and my reaction is what you describe is less regulated than sports betting. For example, in sports betting there are laws by major leagues that players can not bet on games they are in. On prediction markets, if someone has insider knowledge, or can control whatever verification source is set for a bet, they can win (I believe there was an article posted earlier about some journalist reporting on a bomb that fell on an area and was pressured to change the wording to say it fell or was bombed). Additionally, as some of the prediction market wagers have weird grey areas, there are predictions that have additional sub text added after a market has been open/wages have been made which completely change the bet - that is just fast and loose and less regulation IMO

[TZubiri]

My main proposition was that prediction markets include sports betting as well as a bunch of other things, and they are therefore more regulated.

Did some research, and Kalshi (US based) is regulated by the CFTC, so they are already regulated by the same stuff that regulates securities, including price manipulation.

The subject of insider information is different because these are not public securities, there's no fiduciary responsibility. But it's not that there are no regulations, it's just that that specific regulation that we associate with the 2008 crisis just doesn't apply. But that doesn't mean there's no regulation, there's heaps, feel free to check out the CFTC website.

[Yizahi]

If Poly and Kalshi were actually prediction markets, then betting on a person getting shot and then murdering them yourself would both be allowed (by corporation only) and even encouraged. Because this is exactly what a perfect prediction is - you predict and then that happens with 100% guarantee. You are the best predictor and win.

But if Poly and Kalshi are gambling joints, then of course fixing gambling bets is no no, and that is what actually happens. They ban wins of market predictors who actually correctly predicted something but did it by fixing the game. A market prediction service wouldn't care about that, but gambling joint would.

[mcmcmc]

So where are those regulations?

[TZubiri]

I'm not a lawyer, and I originally made a claim about sportsbetting covering a a subset of prediction markets, so just being covered for more laws that are not necessarily related to bets.

But I made some research, and here's the main body that specifically targets 'regulation' regulations for prediction markets https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/index.htm

I can see the argument that they are piggybacking off a body of regulations that wasn't designed for this. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know if that holds, but even if it does, it's undeniable that there are enough parallels between commodity futures and prediction markets and that's why it's being used to regulate so far.

If you argue for more or more specific regulation, it's probably going to be a fork, not regulation from scratch.

And as mentioned in other comments, there's existing laws around the subject of bets themselves that mean that there already exist loads of regulations around these subjects, in the end they are just contracts, which is one of the main branches of law and has a huge body of law and jurisprudence, so either it's inaccurate to say they are unregulated, or it regulation means something much more specific that I'm unaware of.

[kennywinker]

Lol. This is some quality sv psychosis content.

But ok, let’s follow your thought process. Couldn’t someone place a bet on a sporting event and then murder a key player? Wouldn’t all the same laws be triggered?

Laws against criminal activity aren’t regulations. Regulations are limitations and oversight requirements on business activities.

[vintermann]

> Couldn’t someone place a bet on a sporting event and then murder a key player?

Probably not, no. I would be very surprised if the sports betting shops didn't have some sort of "force majeure" clauses.

[kennywinker]

That seems like a good safeguard.

I don’t see any force majeure clauses here https://polymarket.com/event/trump-out-as-president-before-2... but maybe they’re hidden in the fine print?

[TZubiri]

>" can someone place a bet on an event that X person will be shot? "

> Couldn’t someone place a bet on a sporting event and then murder a key player?

I don't follow, these are separate hypotheticals. For the record the answers would be:

1a) Can? Yes

1b) Legal? No, listing itself against public policy.

2a) Can? Yes

2b) Legal? No, murder is illegal

2c) Wager profits retained? No, slayer rule/No profit theory.

[kennywinker]

Re: 1b “public policy” is not law, so no it’s not “illegal” just against the betting site rules. Easily skirted by making the bet not directly about death, e.g. https://polymarket.com/event/trump-out-as-president-before-2...

Re: 2c also applies to scenario 1, if you get caught you can’t retain the money.

So, to your point about which is more regulated - there is no difference in the amount of regulation between the two scenarios.