I misread the title and thought it said he /founded/ Kalshi, which would have been a hell of a story. The actual title says "discovered", but I guess that doesn't quite fit for HN.
That was the submitter's attempt at squishing the title into 80 chars, which is the HN limit. Since it led to a bit of misunderstanding, I've swapped out "sports" so "discovered" could fit back in.
US bankruptcy laws are not punitive enough. After bankruptcy, he should not have been allowed to gamble, anywhere. The US needs something like China's
"high level consumption restriction", which can be imposed on people in financial trouble.[1] Companies, too, in which case it applies to executives as individuals.
Prohibited:
- Travel: No air travel; limited high-speed rail. Can still take the slow green trains, but only in the lower-class coaches.
- Lodging & leisure: No stays in star-rated hotels, nightclubs, golf courses, or other luxury venues. Yes, no golf. No gambling visits to Macau, either. Within China, gambling is already prohibited.
- Property & business: No purchase of real estate; no leasing high-end offices/hotels; no luxury vehicle purchases.
- Education & insurance: No enrollment of children in high-cost private schools.
China can make this work because everything runs on the official government ID card, and the database of who's on consumption restriction is tied to that.
with respect, fuck no. Bankruptcy should be less consequential. A lender or creditor should rely on their own measure of creditworthiness to determine who to lend to, not rely on a borrower’s fear of the state. The punitive nature of bankruptcy served a purpose decades ago but nowadays it is not needed. A lot of creditors nowadays don’t even bother pursuing debts, instead focusing on better checks upfront, hence so much debt being sold for pennies on the dollar. Making bankruptcy catastrophic would give creditors the wrong incentives.
It is not a crime to be unable to pay your debts, therefore your rights cannot be infringed for ending up in such a state. Debts, especially those to private entities, are a civil matter.
Restricting air travel would be an attack on an American's freedom of movement, a right enshrined in our Constitution.
Restriction on doing business with whomever is willing to do business with them would be an attack on an American's freedom of association, which is likewise enshrined in the very first ammendment of our Bill of Rights.
Any US politician who offered up such an outrageous attack on the Constitution would deserve nothing short of death for their utter betrayal of the trust placed in them by the American people.
The elephant in the room that the article nor the comments address is the credit and debt culture in North America and lack of regulation around it.
Gambling is a bad addiction but the long term impact is much lower if you can't possibly spend more money in this addiction. How in hell can someone accumulate 75k$ of debt through credit cards and loans spent in gambling. No financial institution should be allowed to open a second credit card account or loan to someone who hasn't shown ability to timely reimburse its current debt.
What about investing on margin? We should introduce margin calls for credit cards. Owe more on credit cards than you have in the bank and you have to pay it all back at once.
Even if you set aside the addiction issues, these gambling companies are duplicitous. They sell the illusion you can make money participating, when actually you are going to lose money in all liklihood. The business model is basically to be as fraudulent as they can get away with. Kalshi has its own twist — more of a platform to connect fraudsters with marks — but it’s just a way to provide a step of indirection to make it possible to get away with it.
I hadn't heard this was a feature that you could self-exclude / ban yourself from the main apps. Interesting. I think the "he was banned" part is a bit misleading then.
> I hadn't heard this was a feature that you could self-exclude / ban yourself from the main apps.
The other way you can self-exclude or ban yourself from the traditional gambling apps is just win too often.
By definition if you use traditional (non-'market') gambling apps and aren't banned by the owners of them then you're statistically a loser or at best neutral over time.
If you were a winner over time they would ban you to stem their own losses. They are legally allowed to do this and do it all the time.
Reality contradicts you. Some academics found a flaw in odds setting which allowed them to win consistently. Instead of using them to set odds, the gambling site limited their maximum bet to $1.
> No, if you won all the time they would use you to set odds. You'd be the single most valuable customer they have.
Good movie plot, perhaps, and some (relatively) ethical old-school brick and mortar sportsbooks work that way but the non-market online gambling apps have an established system that they all follow.
They all just use 'lazy odds' compiled algorithmically by outside third-parties like Sportradar, Kambi, Genius Sports, etc and if you show any true ability to beat these odds you just get instantly restricted from betting.
Only losers are welcome to remain on the platforms. Gotta keep things maximally extractive.
Some people are comparing banning gambling to banning alcohol or tobacco.
Many of the ideas that later became the United States were discussed in a bar while drinking, the same cannot be said anywhere for solo gambling. Whether you like it or not, alcohol and tobacco are woven into the social order.
You should try looking up betting, coffee houses, and the 18th century, or the founding of the London stock exchange. Gambling plays more of a role than you might want to admit.
The loopholes discussed in the article 100% should be closed, making it easier for problem gamblers that want out to get out, but there will always be the convenience factor that will cause at least some damage. Ease of access also means ease of misuse unfortunately.
In no way is it better now that we have online gambling. The entire industry should be illegal and barred from participation in the traditional banking system.
Nowhere near solving cancer, but hey we got TikTok and Facebook and crypto and AI swarms and endless porn and gambling, and an increasingly radical, divided, depressed, and anxious humanity.
Solving cancer means invent the technology to ensure no or few people die from cancer. For example you invent a technique for whole body scans that almost always catches cancer and you scan everyone every 6 months. Then cancer is solved technologically although rolling out the scanners is very hard and not solved yet.
>- make detection easier and cheaper (e.g. with less invasive biopsies)
How is this different than scanning every cell in the body? You can get rid of the cancer cells you can (easily) detect, but the lengthy chemo/immuno therapy is to catch the few cancer cells that might have gotten away, even though it will harm the body in other ways.
The vaccine possibility sound pretty cool, but my understanding of cancer is that it is a ton of different diseases with different pathologies that require different solutions.
Therefore “a” solution to cancer is not really realistic.
While I in no way support habitual gambling, the second you push for something like that, you will have a sizable group of "freedom activists" up in arms. More likely, I see it being more-heavily taxed to make it less appealing.
Even without the addiction problem, a business that allows you to bet on anything happening in society is bound to be the largest vehicle for corruption in the history of mankind. This is a threat to democracy and stability that actually undermines our freedom. Prediction markets should never have been allowed to exist, and if the US is willing to protect this industry, the rest of the free world should sanction it out of existence.
I share this perspective and hate the straw-man from pro-prediction-marketists that those opposed are moralists and puritans who can't accept that people like to bet on sports.
Prediction markets are a way of effectively placing a "bounty" on something you would like to happen. Or capitalizing on one of these existing bounties because you're able to affect the result. It's a way to commodify power (and information of course, which is what these platforms bill themselves for), converting it into money, which can you can build further power with.
Any law or regulation has a freedom activists group against it. That's normal, any government has an oppression mechanism that enforces it's will. The whole "civilization" was born when people started restricting somebody's freedom in order to achieve some goals (e.g. water rationing in the Ancient Nile).
So it's not surprising someone would be against restricting gambling. The hard part is to how the gov should do it. But it's not government's job to please every single person.
Easy for the gov to do it: make hosting a gambling website in the US illegal, make providing access to online gambling illegal, treat money earned from gambling services like money earned from narcotics trafficking, threaten to punish payment processors if they work with gambling providers, make gambling commercials illegal (like they did with tobacco) etc. Make it where you can't run a billion-dollar company like DraftKings in the US and watch it dry up overnight.
Online gambling was literally illegal in most of the US a decade ago, even on the modern post-social-media internet. You could still do it by jumping through hoops like using a VPN to access foreign gambling sites, but you couldn't get it in the App Store on your iPhone, and you weren't spammed with ads for it every time you watch football.
It's not hard to imagine going back to that world; it wasn't that long ago. I used to support legalizing online gambling back then, but we've run the experiment and seen the results and it's past time to shut it down.
Don't threaten payment processors though. Their overcorrection to laws is breaking the financial system and pushing people to crypto. Just make them do basic KYC so the legal investigation can find who is taking the payments.
Same goes for drugs, tobacco, alcohol etc. oh look how that ended up. There's a reason why Prohibition has been repealed in every major country that tried it.
Alcohol is older than recorded civilization, while online gambling has existed for about half of one human lifetime, and has been mainstream for less than a decade. We're watching the negative consequences play out in real time. This isn't prohibiting something innate to humanity; you could still go to a casino and gamble before DraftKings existed.
10 years ago I had some friends who were into online sports betting. It required getting a VPN, accessing offshore servers, signing up for sketchy websites, and linking an online bank account. It was enough hoops to jump through that the average person wouldn't bother. Back then I would have agreed with you: let the people play! But I'm only 33 and I've watched online gambling cripple peoples' lives in just the last few years. It's a huge problem and should be made illegal again. You should not be able to access it in one click from the App Store.
Just like all prohibitions, if you take away access to X, people will just find other (often illegal/dangerous) ways to do X. We can make gambling less convenient and push it back into the backroom poker rooms and illegal bookies who break peoples' legs, but it would be more effective to solve the problems of despair, desperation and hopelessness that are driving people to gambling in the first place. That's a lot harder, so here we are talking about bans.
Gambling addiction has always existed but making it where you have to physically show up somewhere to do it is actually a highly effective deterrent vs. being able to click a button on your phone and get an app for it.
There is data from the past 10 years showing a direct spike in bankruptcies, divorces, foreclosures, suicide, and domestic violence (yes, really) as soon as DraftKings-style gambling is legalized in a state.
> despair, desperation and hopelessness
These are certainly factors, and yes we should have better mental health treatment and job opportunities in the US, etc.
But it's an incomplete picture of what's happening. There are billion-dollar companies with teams of advanced psychologists crafting the most addictive experience possible, and specifically targeting problem gamblers, with these new apps. It's industrialized and predatory. People with happy fulfilling lives and careers are still falling for it, not just hopeless impoverished people. Saying it's only about mental health and despair is framing it as an individual failing and ignoring the huge industry creating it this way.
The apps and the companies behind them really brought in a dangerous paradigm shift and the data is already here to show it.
> There are billion-dollar companies with teams of advanced psychologists crafting the most addictive experience possible … It's industrialized and predatory.
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion about gambling, not Facebook and TikTok and YouTube and Whatnot and OpenAI and EA and Roblox and every other company that invents a problem (oh no, your hair isn’t shiny!) and uses psychological manipulation to sell you a solution. :-)
Jokes aside, the fact that this sort of predatory behaviour is showing up in multiple industries with broadly similar characteristics (giant corporations with immense wealth concentrations who are not part of the communities they serve and whose only interest is in sucking up all the money) suggests that there are some deeper problems here, and that focusing on the gambling industry is focusing on a red herring (or perhaps the most obvious canary to date, to stick with bird metaphors).
> Saying it's only about mental health and despair is framing it as an individual failing
Not at all! Despair is the outcome of a broken system.
Strange response, do you believe that society has always had access to online gambling, in the same way that alcohol and drugs have been around forever?
So where was this multi billion dollar industry before? This demand is highly elastic and new, which you cannot say about any of the others you mentioned.
There are shades. Sweden allows the sale of alcohol, but it's tightly controlled. Still legal, but you have to buy it from government run stores, and they close early, and bars have to follow a bunch of laws too. Total prohibition doesn't work, yes, but that doesn't mean the government should also be totally hands off of it either.
alcohol prohibition has always been difficult because it's so tied into food and social culture. Tobacco use has been extremely successfully restricted, harder drugs and gambling also remain prohibited in many countries.
You may not be aware of how rapidly and historically unprecedented gambling has spread in the US in the last few years. More than half of all men aged 18-49 participate in some form of online sports betting (https://futurism.com/future-society/men-aged-18-to-49-hooked...)
> She went on: "If you ask our millions of traders, they would emphatically tell you that an exchange model is significantly healthier than a sportsbook model: our profits aren't tied to trader losses, so we don't have the same predatory incentives."
Really wish the author had pushed back more on this. They have different predatory incentives, benefitting from encouraging people to make a large number of slightly stupid bets rather than a smaller number of very stupid ones. I would love to hear Kalshi explain what non-predatory value the 15 minute crypto markets have.
You are mistaken. For every person making a "slightly stupid bet" there's another person who is making a "slightly smart bet". With Kalshi, they aren't the casino who encourage people to make a bunch of bets with negative EV. They are a marketplace that allows one smart person to make a bet with one dumb person (according to your parlance). As long as the markets are fair with no manipulation, things should balance out.
It's like the stock market, where there's always one buyer and one seller. The marketplace, ie. NYSE or Nasdaq for example, don't bias in any particular direction they just being one side together with the other.
They don't care whether the bets are stupid or informed. They don't make more money out of losers than they do out of winners, unlike traditional gambling platforms. (Though this in no way means that you have to like kalshi)
Maybe Kalshi doesn’t care about this, but if the goal is accurate predictions, prediction markets need someone to lose money to fund the sharps, or the markets won’t be big enough to be worthwhile.
In some traditional markets, a source of funding is investors who are hedging, essentially buying insurance.
I guarantee that Kalshi or someone associated with Kalshi is making the other side of some of these orders. Perhaps accounts flagged as consistent losers.
KalshiEX, the platform, makes a bit more money from losers because they subsidize sophisticated winners through their market maker program.
Kalshi Trading LLC, the market maker which is fully owned by KalshiEX and has no independent online presence, makes money from losers in the same way as traditional gambling platforms. Kalshi's claims that this is an independent company are obviously absurd. (It's fair, I think, to say that the structure of the market limits their ability to make windfalls from severe mispricing.)
I misread the title and thought it said he /founded/ Kalshi, which would have been a hell of a story. The actual title says "discovered", but I guess that doesn't quite fit for HN.
Same.
Using https://news.ycombinator.com/bookmarklet.html i got "He was banned by betting sites. Then he relapsed on Kalshi."
That's the HTML doc title, which is what the bookmarklet uses as the default value in the form.
Websites often rotate titles now to improve their performance.
That was the submitter's attempt at squishing the title into 80 chars, which is the HN limit. Since it led to a bit of misunderstanding, I've swapped out "sports" so "discovered" could fit back in.
US bankruptcy laws are not punitive enough. After bankruptcy, he should not have been allowed to gamble, anywhere. The US needs something like China's "high level consumption restriction", which can be imposed on people in financial trouble.[1] Companies, too, in which case it applies to executives as individuals.
Prohibited:
- Travel: No air travel; limited high-speed rail. Can still take the slow green trains, but only in the lower-class coaches.
- Lodging & leisure: No stays in star-rated hotels, nightclubs, golf courses, or other luxury venues. Yes, no golf. No gambling visits to Macau, either. Within China, gambling is already prohibited.
- Property & business: No purchase of real estate; no leasing high-end offices/hotels; no luxury vehicle purchases.
- Education & insurance: No enrollment of children in high-cost private schools.
China can make this work because everything runs on the official government ID card, and the database of who's on consumption restriction is tied to that.
[1] https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/restriction-on-high-l...
with respect, fuck no. Bankruptcy should be less consequential. A lender or creditor should rely on their own measure of creditworthiness to determine who to lend to, not rely on a borrower’s fear of the state. The punitive nature of bankruptcy served a purpose decades ago but nowadays it is not needed. A lot of creditors nowadays don’t even bother pursuing debts, instead focusing on better checks upfront, hence so much debt being sold for pennies on the dollar. Making bankruptcy catastrophic would give creditors the wrong incentives.
It is not a crime to be unable to pay your debts, therefore your rights cannot be infringed for ending up in such a state. Debts, especially those to private entities, are a civil matter.
Restricting air travel would be an attack on an American's freedom of movement, a right enshrined in our Constitution.
Restriction on doing business with whomever is willing to do business with them would be an attack on an American's freedom of association, which is likewise enshrined in the very first ammendment of our Bill of Rights.
Any US politician who offered up such an outrageous attack on the Constitution would deserve nothing short of death for their utter betrayal of the trust placed in them by the American people.
It is a crime if the debts are to the state
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/09/how-common-is...
The elephant in the room that the article nor the comments address is the credit and debt culture in North America and lack of regulation around it.
Gambling is a bad addiction but the long term impact is much lower if you can't possibly spend more money in this addiction. How in hell can someone accumulate 75k$ of debt through credit cards and loans spent in gambling. No financial institution should be allowed to open a second credit card account or loan to someone who hasn't shown ability to timely reimburse its current debt.
What about investing on margin? We should introduce margin calls for credit cards. Owe more on credit cards than you have in the bank and you have to pay it all back at once.
(not being serious)
Even if you set aside the addiction issues, these gambling companies are duplicitous. They sell the illusion you can make money participating, when actually you are going to lose money in all liklihood. The business model is basically to be as fraudulent as they can get away with. Kalshi has its own twist — more of a platform to connect fraudsters with marks — but it’s just a way to provide a step of indirection to make it possible to get away with it.
I hadn't heard this was a feature that you could self-exclude / ban yourself from the main apps. Interesting. I think the "he was banned" part is a bit misleading then.
> I hadn't heard this was a feature that you could self-exclude / ban yourself from the main apps.
The other way you can self-exclude or ban yourself from the traditional gambling apps is just win too often.
By definition if you use traditional (non-'market') gambling apps and aren't banned by the owners of them then you're statistically a loser or at best neutral over time.
If you were a winner over time they would ban you to stem their own losses. They are legally allowed to do this and do it all the time.
No, if you won all the time they would use you to set odds. You'd be the single most valuable customer they have.
Reality contradicts you. Some academics found a flaw in odds setting which allowed them to win consistently. Instead of using them to set odds, the gambling site limited their maximum bet to $1.
> No, if you won all the time they would use you to set odds. You'd be the single most valuable customer they have.
Good movie plot, perhaps, and some (relatively) ethical old-school brick and mortar sportsbooks work that way but the non-market online gambling apps have an established system that they all follow.
They all just use 'lazy odds' compiled algorithmically by outside third-parties like Sportradar, Kambi, Genius Sports, etc and if you show any true ability to beat these odds you just get instantly restricted from betting.
Only losers are welcome to remain on the platforms. Gotta keep things maximally extractive.
Before legal online gambling there was illegal online poker.
How much did legalization contribute to making it mainstream-casual? What about the ads?
I think it's time for a modern Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act which banned cigarette commercials on TV and radio starting January 1, 1971.
It's my opinion that gambling be reserved for Atlantic City (or your town). But legality aside, we ought to at least stop advertising it.
Kalshi, Polymarket and sports betting are a scourge.
Some people are comparing banning gambling to banning alcohol or tobacco.
Many of the ideas that later became the United States were discussed in a bar while drinking, the same cannot be said anywhere for solo gambling. Whether you like it or not, alcohol and tobacco are woven into the social order.
You should try looking up betting, coffee houses, and the 18th century, or the founding of the London stock exchange. Gambling plays more of a role than you might want to admit.
"Solo Gambling" vs "Social Gambling"
The loopholes discussed in the article 100% should be closed, making it easier for problem gamblers that want out to get out, but there will always be the convenience factor that will cause at least some damage. Ease of access also means ease of misuse unfortunately.
In no way is it better now that we have online gambling. The entire industry should be illegal and barred from participation in the traditional banking system.
Nowhere near solving cancer, but hey we got TikTok and Facebook and crypto and AI swarms and endless porn and gambling, and an increasingly radical, divided, depressed, and anxious humanity.
What does solving cancer mean? Stopping any and all mutations from happening? Seems like a pretty tall order.
I guess being able to scan each and every cell for the cancerous mutation is also a possible solution, but also a tall order.
Solving cancer means invent the technology to ensure no or few people die from cancer. For example you invent a technique for whole body scans that almost always catches cancer and you scan everyone every 6 months. Then cancer is solved technologically although rolling out the scanners is very hard and not solved yet.
I'll assume you're asking in good faith. You don't have to prevent mutations or scan every cell in the human body to "solve" cancer. You can:
- make detection easier and cheaper (e.g. with less invasive biopsies)
- make treatment easier and cheaper (e.g. more precise targeted treatments, making chemo a last resort instead of the only option)
Among other things. There's even emerging research that certain types of cancers could be "vaccinated" against: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02612-3
>- make detection easier and cheaper (e.g. with less invasive biopsies)
How is this different than scanning every cell in the body? You can get rid of the cancer cells you can (easily) detect, but the lengthy chemo/immuno therapy is to catch the few cancer cells that might have gotten away, even though it will harm the body in other ways.
The vaccine possibility sound pretty cool, but my understanding of cancer is that it is a ton of different diseases with different pathologies that require different solutions.
Therefore “a” solution to cancer is not really realistic.
It means being able to stop any uncontrolled cell replication.
While I in no way support habitual gambling, the second you push for something like that, you will have a sizable group of "freedom activists" up in arms. More likely, I see it being more-heavily taxed to make it less appealing.
Even without the addiction problem, a business that allows you to bet on anything happening in society is bound to be the largest vehicle for corruption in the history of mankind. This is a threat to democracy and stability that actually undermines our freedom. Prediction markets should never have been allowed to exist, and if the US is willing to protect this industry, the rest of the free world should sanction it out of existence.
I share this perspective and hate the straw-man from pro-prediction-marketists that those opposed are moralists and puritans who can't accept that people like to bet on sports.
Prediction markets are a way of effectively placing a "bounty" on something you would like to happen. Or capitalizing on one of these existing bounties because you're able to affect the result. It's a way to commodify power (and information of course, which is what these platforms bill themselves for), converting it into money, which can you can build further power with.
Any law or regulation has a freedom activists group against it. That's normal, any government has an oppression mechanism that enforces it's will. The whole "civilization" was born when people started restricting somebody's freedom in order to achieve some goals (e.g. water rationing in the Ancient Nile).
So it's not surprising someone would be against restricting gambling. The hard part is to how the gov should do it. But it's not government's job to please every single person.
Easy for the gov to do it: make hosting a gambling website in the US illegal, make providing access to online gambling illegal, treat money earned from gambling services like money earned from narcotics trafficking, threaten to punish payment processors if they work with gambling providers, make gambling commercials illegal (like they did with tobacco) etc. Make it where you can't run a billion-dollar company like DraftKings in the US and watch it dry up overnight.
Online gambling was literally illegal in most of the US a decade ago, even on the modern post-social-media internet. You could still do it by jumping through hoops like using a VPN to access foreign gambling sites, but you couldn't get it in the App Store on your iPhone, and you weren't spammed with ads for it every time you watch football.
It's not hard to imagine going back to that world; it wasn't that long ago. I used to support legalizing online gambling back then, but we've run the experiment and seen the results and it's past time to shut it down.
Don't threaten payment processors though. Their overcorrection to laws is breaking the financial system and pushing people to crypto. Just make them do basic KYC so the legal investigation can find who is taking the payments.
The problem about more-heavily taxed is that the gambling companies have spotted this and are registered in off shore tax havens.
Same goes for drugs, tobacco, alcohol etc. oh look how that ended up. There's a reason why Prohibition has been repealed in every major country that tried it.
Alcohol is older than recorded civilization, while online gambling has existed for about half of one human lifetime, and has been mainstream for less than a decade. We're watching the negative consequences play out in real time. This isn't prohibiting something innate to humanity; you could still go to a casino and gamble before DraftKings existed.
10 years ago I had some friends who were into online sports betting. It required getting a VPN, accessing offshore servers, signing up for sketchy websites, and linking an online bank account. It was enough hoops to jump through that the average person wouldn't bother. Back then I would have agreed with you: let the people play! But I'm only 33 and I've watched online gambling cripple peoples' lives in just the last few years. It's a huge problem and should be made illegal again. You should not be able to access it in one click from the App Store.
Just like all prohibitions, if you take away access to X, people will just find other (often illegal/dangerous) ways to do X. We can make gambling less convenient and push it back into the backroom poker rooms and illegal bookies who break peoples' legs, but it would be more effective to solve the problems of despair, desperation and hopelessness that are driving people to gambling in the first place. That's a lot harder, so here we are talking about bans.
Gambling addiction has always existed but making it where you have to physically show up somewhere to do it is actually a highly effective deterrent vs. being able to click a button on your phone and get an app for it.
There is data from the past 10 years showing a direct spike in bankruptcies, divorces, foreclosures, suicide, and domestic violence (yes, really) as soon as DraftKings-style gambling is legalized in a state.
> despair, desperation and hopelessness
These are certainly factors, and yes we should have better mental health treatment and job opportunities in the US, etc.
But it's an incomplete picture of what's happening. There are billion-dollar companies with teams of advanced psychologists crafting the most addictive experience possible, and specifically targeting problem gamblers, with these new apps. It's industrialized and predatory. People with happy fulfilling lives and careers are still falling for it, not just hopeless impoverished people. Saying it's only about mental health and despair is framing it as an individual failing and ignoring the huge industry creating it this way.
The apps and the companies behind them really brought in a dangerous paradigm shift and the data is already here to show it.
> There are billion-dollar companies with teams of advanced psychologists crafting the most addictive experience possible … It's industrialized and predatory.
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion about gambling, not Facebook and TikTok and YouTube and Whatnot and OpenAI and EA and Roblox and every other company that invents a problem (oh no, your hair isn’t shiny!) and uses psychological manipulation to sell you a solution. :-)
Jokes aside, the fact that this sort of predatory behaviour is showing up in multiple industries with broadly similar characteristics (giant corporations with immense wealth concentrations who are not part of the communities they serve and whose only interest is in sucking up all the money) suggests that there are some deeper problems here, and that focusing on the gambling industry is focusing on a red herring (or perhaps the most obvious canary to date, to stick with bird metaphors).
> Saying it's only about mental health and despair is framing it as an individual failing
Not at all! Despair is the outcome of a broken system.
[dead]
Should we let minors buy cigarettes?
Legalize murder so people aren't forced to do it in the backrooms. Think of the murderers, they'll get their legs broken otherwise!
Strange response, do you believe that society has always had access to online gambling, in the same way that alcohol and drugs have been around forever?
Nope, we're talking about online gambling and prediction markets. It should be illegal in the US.
So where was this multi billion dollar industry before? This demand is highly elastic and new, which you cannot say about any of the others you mentioned.
There are shades. Sweden allows the sale of alcohol, but it's tightly controlled. Still legal, but you have to buy it from government run stores, and they close early, and bars have to follow a bunch of laws too. Total prohibition doesn't work, yes, but that doesn't mean the government should also be totally hands off of it either.
alcohol prohibition has always been difficult because it's so tied into food and social culture. Tobacco use has been extremely successfully restricted, harder drugs and gambling also remain prohibited in many countries.
You may not be aware of how rapidly and historically unprecedented gambling has spread in the US in the last few years. More than half of all men aged 18-49 participate in some form of online sports betting (https://futurism.com/future-society/men-aged-18-to-49-hooked...)
There aren't too many places where you can order beer from Amazon.
Polymarket is, so it uses crypto instead and is no less popular.
> She went on: "If you ask our millions of traders, they would emphatically tell you that an exchange model is significantly healthier than a sportsbook model: our profits aren't tied to trader losses, so we don't have the same predatory incentives."
Really wish the author had pushed back more on this. They have different predatory incentives, benefitting from encouraging people to make a large number of slightly stupid bets rather than a smaller number of very stupid ones. I would love to hear Kalshi explain what non-predatory value the 15 minute crypto markets have.
You are mistaken. For every person making a "slightly stupid bet" there's another person who is making a "slightly smart bet". With Kalshi, they aren't the casino who encourage people to make a bunch of bets with negative EV. They are a marketplace that allows one smart person to make a bet with one dumb person (according to your parlance). As long as the markets are fair with no manipulation, things should balance out.
It's like the stock market, where there's always one buyer and one seller. The marketplace, ie. NYSE or Nasdaq for example, don't bias in any particular direction they just being one side together with the other.
They don't care whether the bets are stupid or informed. They don't make more money out of losers than they do out of winners, unlike traditional gambling platforms. (Though this in no way means that you have to like kalshi)
Maybe Kalshi doesn’t care about this, but if the goal is accurate predictions, prediction markets need someone to lose money to fund the sharps, or the markets won’t be big enough to be worthwhile.
In some traditional markets, a source of funding is investors who are hedging, essentially buying insurance.
I guarantee that Kalshi or someone associated with Kalshi is making the other side of some of these orders. Perhaps accounts flagged as consistent losers.
KalshiEX, the platform, makes a bit more money from losers because they subsidize sophisticated winners through their market maker program.
Kalshi Trading LLC, the market maker which is fully owned by KalshiEX and has no independent online presence, makes money from losers in the same way as traditional gambling platforms. Kalshi's claims that this is an independent company are obviously absurd. (It's fair, I think, to say that the structure of the market limits their ability to make windfalls from severe mispricing.)
He wasn’t banned he banned himself from two websites and then found a third what a non-story.