I'm curious to see how this works out, because sports betting is _not_ in the CFTC's remit, and Kalshi etc's argument that states can't regulate them because they're not technically sports betting is contrary to the spirit of the law
reply> because sports betting is _not_ in the CFTC's remit
replyTraditionally it has not been, but the current CFTC says that 'prediction bets on sports' ARE under their purview. This has not been fully challenged in court, though.
If Congress intended for the CFTC to regulate sports betting, it would have had that language in the act that originated the agency. It's telling that only recently the CFTC has discovered such authority. No previous leadership of the CFTC read the act to mean what the current leadership thinks it means.
replyThis is 2026. We don’t need your stinking laws.
replyWhat if CFTC would start to claim they are allowed to regulate online casinos or online poker? I feel that would be about as non-sensical.
replyThere’s no “house” or “book” aspect to Kalshi. They are nothing more than contracts that are bought and sold between individuals.
replyLots of types of contracts bought and sold between individuals are prohibited by law.
replyThey problem is the federal government considers these particular contracts are generally legal, and the states have no authority.
replyHave you heard of Betfair? A UK company which has done "prediction markets" since 2000. In the Europe it is called a betting exchange and regulated like sports betting. And betting pools is another form of betting which is way older than that and there are no house in them either.
replyAnd by your argument poker or backgammon would not be gambling either.
>And by your argument poker or backgammon would not be gambling either.
replyThey aren't. A sportsbook explicitly sets lines and you are betting that the line they set is incorrect.
How do they make money?
replyJust like other exchanges.
replyThey charge trading fees.
They also place their own bets within their own market. They don't just make money on trading fees.
replySounds like a glaringly obvious conflict of interest?
replyBe careful, the market makers always win. If you go against them, you make yourself a target.
replyOf course it is, people will do whatever they can get away with.
replyA different entity provides liquidity.
replyThere’s no house like in sportsbooks.
And there is no house in pool betting, poker or backgammon either. We still count all of them including betting exchanges (what has now been rebranded as prediction markets) are still normally regulated as gambling.
replyNot in the US.
replyKalshi does not trade against its users.
replyThat's their PR department talking.
replyhttps://straighttothepoint.substack.com/p/you-cant-have-it-b...
https://www.sportico.com/business/sports-betting/2025/kalshi...
Kalshi definitely does this
replyThey just don't make any money off it.
What about the special partners that put up bets that are basically just methods to launder the fact that there's a house?
reply> it's a little unusual to see a federal agency suing to protect its turf.
replyThis is Don Jr's consulting fee at work.
This should not be downvoted and is a legitimate criticism. Trump Jr. has a "special advisory role" in both Kalshi and polymarket. It would track with this administration to deploy a rapid defense of a corruption generation market where the current president's son is getting paid off by the two main competitors in the market.
replyNevada was able to get it banned. The casino pull is huge.
reply