[HN Gopher] FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       FBI Raids Home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan
        
       Author : jaboutboul
       Score  : 72 points
       Date   : 2024-11-13 21:29 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
        
       | koolba wrote:
       | According to the NY Post they came in at 6am this morning and
       | seized his phone and other electronics:
       | https://nypost.com/2024/11/13/business/fbi-seizes-polymarket...
        
       | underseacables wrote:
       | I think the key factor here is that the website allowed Americans
       | to bet on the political market. Which I still don't quite
       | understand, the FBI waiting until after the election for this.
       | Why didn't they go after them sooner?
       | 
       | Feels wrong.
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | > _Which I still don 't quite understand, the FBI waiting until
         | after the election for this. Why didn't they go after them
         | sooner?_
         | 
         | Because the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have gone to town if
         | the market predicting Trump's win were shut down _before_ the
         | election?
         | 
         | Polymarket hit popular imagination in the summer of 2023 with
         | the Titan submersible [1]. American political betting didn't
         | hit papers until earlier this year. We're well within normal
         | FBI timelines for executing a first search.
         | 
         | [1] https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-missing-submarine-
         | be-f...
        
         | bigtechennui wrote:
         | One explanation is it gives Polymarket more rope to hang
         | themselves with. Trading volume likely spiked in the lead up,
         | and during, election night. Big numbers make for splashier
         | headlines.
         | 
         | Another could be concern of doing anything visibly election
         | related prior to the election, in case the winner didn't like
         | the action.
        
           | inglor_cz wrote:
           | While I understand that logic, I also find it a bit
           | distasteful. Law enforcement shouldn't tolerate crimes being
           | committed on its watch any longer than necessary.
           | 
           | Of course, the exact meaning of "necessary" is the problem.
           | We can probably all agree that letting a serial murderer kill
           | more people in order to have more evidence against him would
           | be an absolute abomination. But the situation is not that
           | clear with white-collar crime, especially the sort of crime
           | where the harm is not immediately obvious.
           | 
           | Maybe the fact that the FBI could wait that long before
           | pouncing indicates that this sort of betting is, in fact, a
           | victimless crime.
        
             | dopamean wrote:
             | They probably have a different definition of what is
             | "necessary" than you. If waiting for further crimes to be
             | committed makes the case more of a sure thing in their
             | eyes) then it's necessary. Or if it gives them more serious
             | crimes to prosecute or a higher up person to prosecute. I
             | believe this is common in organized crime investigations.
        
         | legitster wrote:
         | Shutting them down before the election would have been much,
         | much, much worse.
        
         | csours wrote:
         | https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-does-the-60-day-ru...
         | 
         | https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-85000-protection-government-...
         | 
         | > " Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an
         | issue under this provision requires consultation with the
         | Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if
         | the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation
         | is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney
         | General. "
         | 
         | Don't get stuck in a framing story.
        
         | scottyah wrote:
         | Robinhood launched a new feature where we could bet on the
         | presidential candidate. I've heard of a couple others too, so I
         | think that laws were created and funded by competitors, and
         | they defined what was legal in a way that excluded polymarket.
         | 
         | I think in this case, polymarket allows betting on anything,
         | competitors got betting on the election legalized
         | (https://www.barrons.com/news/last-minute-legal-ruling-
         | allows...), so they get the cash from polymarket's idea then
         | get them banned/stopped long enough to take their market share.
         | 
         | VC's call it Regulatory Capture, politicians call it
         | corruption.
        
       | legitster wrote:
       | Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple
       | as:
       | 
       | - Polymarket is still very illegal in the US
       | 
       | - Lol. We all know it's easy to get around that
       | 
       | - If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws,
       | he could be in trouble. And if there was evidence he was
       | _encouraging_ it, he could be in big trouble
        
         | herpderperator wrote:
         | Can someone explain to me how this is? It's a company HQ'd in
         | New York, but it's not allowed to do business in the very
         | country it's HQ'd in? What am I missing?
        
           | vinay427 wrote:
           | As I understand it (very much not a lawyer), the company
           | complies with US laws by not allowing people in the US to use
           | it, so there's no issue doing business.
        
       | kwisatzh wrote:
       | He'll get pardoned. It's a Thiel company.
        
         | bequanna wrote:
         | Maybe he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place?
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place?_
           | 
           | Was he arrested? The article only mentions a search.
        
           | edm0nd wrote:
           | He wasnt arrested nor has been charged with anything. Try
           | again.
        
             | encoderer wrote:
             | I'm willing to let the government make their case, but
             | let's not pretend that a 6am raid from the feds is better
             | than getting arrested.
        
               | nshkrdotcom wrote:
               | A 6am raid from the feds is better than getting arrested.
               | It is.
        
       | beejiu wrote:
       | Can we please stop calling them "prediction markets". This only
       | legitimizes what they really are, "gambling exchanges".
        
         | nickff wrote:
         | I am not familiar with the term 'gambling exchange', where'd
         | you get it? Many 'sportsbooks' are referred to as 'betting
         | exchanges', but that has become something of a term of art,
         | much like the term 'prediction market'.
         | 
         | In any case, attempting to use a derogatory or denigrating
         | euphemism to refer to something is usually less productive than
         | simply exposing (what you perceive to be) its faults. What
         | specific issues do you have with these markets/exchanges?
        
           | troad wrote:
           | Not GP, but I suspect it's the gambling part? Hence the name?
           | 
           | Gambling is a destructive addition that the vast majority of
           | participants cannot manage well. It harms not only them, but
           | their children and their spouses. How many a kid's college
           | fund has gone up in smoke? A lot of harm is done to very
           | innocent people in pursuit of a ten second rush. (Much like
           | all other addictions.)
           | 
           | I also very respectfully disagree that inventing a name for
           | something is not productive - it's incredible effective, in
           | fact. That's why political campaigns often favour duelling
           | names over hot button issues: it's easier to win broad based
           | support from soccer moms and football dads for 'marriage
           | equality', whereas 'homosexual marriage' may be a harder
           | sell. See also 'medicare for all' versus 'socialized
           | medicine', 'pro-choice' v 'pro-life' etc.
        
           | beejiu wrote:
           | But it is not derogatory or euphemistic, it is descriptive.
           | Polymarket _is_ gambling by any definition. Gambling is known
           | and proven to have great harms and risks to society.
           | 
           | (And I got the term "gambling exchange" from the UK where
           | Betfair Exhange basically does what Polymarket do since 2000,
           | without the Crypto glamour.)
        
             | sitzkrieg wrote:
             | are futures markets gambling in your eyes because
             | speculators can participate?
        
               | snakeyjake wrote:
               | Yes.
        
               | beejiu wrote:
               | I can only speak from a UK perspective, but many
               | financial instruments can be used in a gambling sense by
               | retail "investors". In 2019, our regulator banned binary
               | options, saying this:
               | 
               | "Binary options are gambling products dressed up as
               | financial instruments. By confirming our ban today we are
               | ensuring that investors don't lose money from an
               | inherently flawed product."
               | 
               | https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-confirms-
               | permanen....
               | 
               | Sound familiar?
               | 
               | They also highly regulate CFDs and other financial
               | instruments that are marketed to retail.
        
           | mrcode007 wrote:
           | IIRC There is only one prediction market with a single
           | regulatory exemption granted for the University of Iowa and
           | the bets are limited to $500.
           | 
           | The rest of what we see are (binary) event contracts
           | (options)
           | 
           | Based on my understanding, which may be incorrect, they seem
           | to be basically a rebranding of binary options which were
           | illegal in the US for the longest time. With a clever
           | renaming trick things now work :)
        
         | yieldcrv wrote:
         | since I like gambling on stock exchanges and table games I
         | prefer the more nuanced term for the specific game I'm playing.
         | 
         | its more wasteful for some segment of our society to need a
         | distinction between investing or gambling at all, the people
         | they're competing against don't care, don't have any cultural
         | limitation, religious limitation, or peer group that needs this
         | distinction. and your "legitimizes" wording looks based on
         | needing a distinction.
         | 
         | even with the "positive or negative expected value" metrics to
         | distinguish some financial games, I've traded options contracts
         | with a lower expected value than a table game at a casino. so
         | just don't worry about the distinction and use our words for
         | the specific game we're playing. prediction markets are
         | prediction markets.
        
       | alsetmusic wrote:
       | > "This is obvious political retribution by the outgoing
       | administration against Polymarket for providing a market that
       | correctly called the 2024 presidential election," a Polymarket
       | spokesperson tells Axios. "Polymarket is a fully transparent
       | prediction market that helps everyday people better understand
       | the events that matter most to them, including elections."
       | 
       | Funny how one side is continually targeted unfairly, almost as if
       | it's their motto, and the other side more or less never makes the
       | same claim. Is it because one side is full of lies or because the
       | other is too timid to call out the persecution?
       | 
       | That was a rhetorical question. Crypto bros and the like
       | (including people who would run a market like this) are typically
       | right-leaning or libertarian. They're fundamentally dishonest.
       | (I'm not claiming liberals don't also lie; just that it isn't a
       | standard operating procedure on the scale of the right.)
        
       | neilv wrote:
       | > _" This is obvious political retribution by the outgoing
       | administration against Polymarket for providing a market that
       | correctly called the 2024 presidential election," a Polymarket
       | spokesperson tells Axios._
       | 
       | When I saw that statement, from a company spokesperson, it was
       | striking.
       | 
       | Is it now respectable and advisable for a corporation to make
       | official statements like this?
        
         | lupusreal wrote:
         | Respectable is subjective. Advisable? If they're probably
         | guilty then appealing to the biases of the incoming
         | administration is probably a good idea. On the other hand, if
         | they're innocent and their accusation of bias is accurate, then
         | saying as much is probably a good idea too.
        
         | iAMkenough wrote:
         | If the bar for decorum is the President-elect, then yes this
         | would be considered an acceptable statement.
        
         | ronsor wrote:
         | Corporations have been making these kinds of statements for
         | almost the past decade.
        
           | PittleyDunkin wrote:
           | Have corporations ever not played the "aggrieved victim"
           | card?
        
             | ronsor wrote:
             | The social/political appeal part is the new part. Companies
             | have always released "we did nothing wrong" statements.
        
       | Imnimo wrote:
       | >This is obvious political retribution by the outgoing
       | administration against Polymarket for providing a market that
       | correctly called the 2024 presidential election
       | 
       | I don't even understand what the conspiracy theory is here. Why
       | would that be something the Biden administration would seek
       | retribution for? And even it were, how would they possibly
       | achieve it before the new administration takes office?
        
       | daft_pink wrote:
       | It's sad that something based on the Wisdom of Crowds by James
       | Surowiecki is being politicized as gambling. It's crucial that we
       | have prediction markets so that we can better understand the
       | risks of things happening in our world.
        
         | aiforecastthway wrote:
         | 1. We do have prediction markets -- Kalshi, IB, and Robinhood
         | all offered binary options contracts on election outcomes this
         | year.
         | 
         | 2. A ton of options trading _is_ gambling, and binary options
         | on events particularly so. Doesn 't mean it should be illegal,
         | of course, but I think that's just a facially obvious truth
         | that we should all be honest with one another about.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-11-13 23:00 UTC)