Rendered at 20:46:30 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
johnleslie_pm 1 days ago [-]
This is Kalshi trying to self-regulate before regulators do it for them. The timing is not coincidental -- the DOJ just arrested a Special Forces soldier for insider trading on Polymarket, and New York just banned state employees from prediction market insider trading.
Kalshi has about 89% market share among regulated US platforms. They have a lot to lose if Congress decides prediction markets need the same treatment as securities. Suspending candidates who bet on their own races is a cheap way to demonstrate they take integrity seriously.
The interesting question is whether self-regulation is enough. These three candidates were caught because the bets were on their own races, which is easy to detect. The harder problem is friends, family, and staffers placing bets based on internal campaign data. That pattern is nearly impossible to catch without the kind of surveillance infrastructure that the SEC uses for stock trading.
eqvinox 3 days ago [-]
As long as they bet on themselves winning, it seems kinda fine? They're not really manipulating things, just profiting from their own work...
Betting on themselves losing would be a problem, since then they could manipulate the result by sabotaging themselves. But that only works one direction.
gus_massa 2 days ago [-]
You can have an honest bet against yourself as an insurance:
Win: get the salary in congress.
Lose: get money from kalshi.
yfw 3 days ago [-]
Could also sabotage others
eqvinox 2 days ago [-]
Sure, but it doesn't really change motivations around that. Shady politicians might do that anyway, bet or no bet.
The problem with sabotaging yourself is that it challenges the assumption that everyone is playing to win. If anything, supporting other candidates might be questionable, if you bet on yourself losing.
Kalshi has about 89% market share among regulated US platforms. They have a lot to lose if Congress decides prediction markets need the same treatment as securities. Suspending candidates who bet on their own races is a cheap way to demonstrate they take integrity seriously.
The interesting question is whether self-regulation is enough. These three candidates were caught because the bets were on their own races, which is easy to detect. The harder problem is friends, family, and staffers placing bets based on internal campaign data. That pattern is nearly impossible to catch without the kind of surveillance infrastructure that the SEC uses for stock trading.
Betting on themselves losing would be a problem, since then they could manipulate the result by sabotaging themselves. But that only works one direction.
Win: get the salary in congress.
Lose: get money from kalshi.
The problem with sabotaging yourself is that it challenges the assumption that everyone is playing to win. If anything, supporting other candidates might be questionable, if you bet on yourself losing.