Shreyas Hariharan

@TheTakenUser Why do you think there’s thin volume? I understand retail demand for this maybe low but there are so many ways to hedge or express stock views through these markets

@HelloShreyas I thought prediction markets are getting a crime hall pass - sports gambling rebranded as “event contracts” 🤣 I would be surprised if legality is a deterrent. Probably the thin volume is why there are not more such markets. If volume picks up they will meet the demand

It would be useful to break down the stock of a company into its component parts and have prediction markets on them: - Earnings - Products sold - Headcount - Compute spend - FDA approval Why are there such few markets on this and why don't they have volume?

“Don’t judge a book by its cover” -> everyone judges books by their cover “Don’t focus on status” -> everyone is obsessed with status “Be yourself” -> everyone is performing All advice is a confession about human nature - that the opposite behavior is near-universal

My assessment: Supreme Court will side with Kalshi and CFTC The definition of ‘swap’ in the Dodd Frank was intentionally broad Unlike the PASPA case, there's now a federal body (CFTC) that has a clear mandate to regulate swaps. So federal preemption supersedes states' rights

The case will likely make it to Supreme Court but it cuts across typical ideological viewpoints - Conservative justices are textual originalists, which favors Kalshi since the swap definition is broad. But they are also committed to states’ rights, which favors the states. - Liberal justices are typically pro-federal regulatory authority but skeptical of financial industry arguments and sympathetic to consumer protection.

Today, the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi over New Jersey. This is a big deal. It's the highest level ruling on this issue to date. The fate of the industry hinges on two phrases in a law written after the 2008 financial crisis. What defines a 'swap'? dopaminemarkets.com/p/prediction-m…

Major win for Kalshi today. 14 states, the CFTC, and billion dollar companies are in a knife fight over the definition of a swap: - Does a sports game have economic consequence? - Does the game need to directly drive that consequence, or can it be indirect? The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi today vs. New Jersey: - Sports games do have economic consequences. e.g. sponsors, TV deals - Indirect consequences count This is significant because it's the first federal appeals court to rule on this question, and it sides with Kalshi over state regulators. The courts are split overall: - Kalshi won in NJ, Tennessee, Northern California - States won in Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada - CFTC is suing Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut on Kalshi's behalf This is likely headed to the Supreme Court. The fate of prediction markets rests on this ruling.

@kankanivishal @multicoin @tushar_jain Congrats on the run man!

Personal update — I'm moving on from @multicoin. It was an absolute privilege to work alongside such an exceptional team and the amazing founders we've partnered with. I am grateful for that. I want to extend special appreciation to @tushar_jain for being an invaluable leader and mentor throughout the years. I have learned a lot from you. I continue to be bullish on the crypto industry. It has never been clearer that crypto will be the foundational infrastructure powering global finance, and the regulatory backdrop is the most constructive it has ever been. I look forward to exploring the highest-leverage opportunities in the next phase of my career. Stay tuned.

@pareen @khushii_w @eshita Thank you ser

@khushii_w @HelloShreyas @eshita great insights!

@la_malvido 🙏

Recomiendo mucho leer esta nota si tienen chance.

@aaronjmars 🫡

@HelloShreyas interesting

@SchezHugo Thank you!

@HelloShreyas This was a great read