Would you pay good money for accurate predictions about important events, such as election results or military campaigns? Not if the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has its way. It recently took enforcement action against overseas prediction markets run by InTrade and TEN. The alleged offense? Allowing Americans to trade on claims about future events.
The blunt version: If you want to put your money where your mouth is, the CFTC wants to shut you up.
A prediction market allows its participants to buy and sell claims payable upon the occurrence of some future event, such as an election or Supreme Court opinion. Because they align incentives with accuracy and tap the wisdom of crowds, prediction markets offer useful information about future events. InTrade, for instance, accurately called the recent U.S. presidential vote in all but one state.
As far as the CFTC is concerned, people buying and selling claims about political futures deserve the same treatment as people buying and selling claims about pork futures: Heavy regulations, enforcement actions, and bans. Co-authors Josh Blackman, Miriam A. Cherry, and I described in this recent op-ed why the CFTC’s animosity to prediction markets threatens the First Amendment.
The CFTC has already managed to scare would-be entrepreneurs away from trying to run real-money prediction markets in the U.S. Now it threatens overseas markets. With luck, the Internet will render the CFTC's censorship futile, saving the marketplace in ideas from the politics of ignorance.
Why take chances, though? I suggest two policies to protect prediction markets and the honest talk they host. First, the CFTC should implement the policies described in the jointly authored Comment on CFTC Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts, July 6, 2008. (Aside to CFTC: Your web-based copy appears to have disappeared. Ask me for a copy.)
Second, real-money public prediction markets should make clear that they fall outside the CFTC's jurisdiction by deploying notices, setting up independent contractor relations with traders, and dealing in negotiable conditional notes. For details, see these papers starting with this one.
[Aside to Jerry and Adam: Per my promise.]
[Crossposted at Technology Liberation Front, and Agoraphilia.]
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
CFTC Targets Prediction Markets; Hits First Amendment
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Anarchist Chess
My boy, Kai, joined his school's chess club this fall and has ardently plunged into learning the game. He enjoys setting up the board next to his mom's favorite reading chair and playing both sides of lively matches, complete with violent captures and Star Wars sound effects.
At only five years old, Kai has a long way to go before he masters chess. Yet I think he has already figured out something that a lot of adults don't understand. Running from his chess board to my side, the other day, Kai announced with glee, "I was playing myself and I captured my king but I just kept playing without him!"
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Quake Markets
Markets offer us a potentially useful tool for predicting earthquakes. Imagine the San Andreas fault divided into segments, each of which carries a price based on the present discounted disvalue of a future quake. That price would reflect both a quake's place in time and its place on the Richter scale. Such a market in quake claims would probably generate some useful--even lifesaving--data. If sufficiently thick, it might offer hedging, too.
I've not yet found that sort of quake market. Has any of you? If none exists, at least one should! Plenty of people and institutions would love to know more about earthquakes. Some of them would gladly support an earthquake market, I'd bet. There remain some legal risks, granted, but I think I've got a good hack for those. (Long story short: independent contractor researchers paid a base salary for making trades and winning bonuses for correct predictions.)
One nice thing about a quake market: Done right, it would generate powerfully positive externalities, benefiting even those who do not trade on the market. Imagine a map of the San Andreas fault, the price of each tradable segment illustrated by color coding or line thickness. One glance at that picture, and you would know whether it was time to relax, double-check your emergency kit, or head for the hills.
[Crossposted to Midas Oracle.]
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
PurePlay's Patented Legal Hack
Some months ago, I noted that Betzip.com (since rechristened "PurePlay.com") employs an intriguing legal hack to avoid anti-gambling regulations. It charges its customers a flat monthly fee, which qualifies them to win large prizes for winning online poker games. Non-paying customers can play the same games for free, too—though without qualifying for the largest prizes.
Why adopt that business model? Presumably, because it allows PurePlay to argue that it does not offer a gambling service. Specifically, PurePlay could claim that, because the amount players win has no relation to how much they stake, it dodges the "consideration" element of the legal definition of gambling. Query whether that claim would survive the devoted attentions of a prosecutor and court. I set that question aside, though, and here focus on PurePlay's claim that they have patented their business model.
Curious about the scope of PurePlay's patent, I searched its website for details. It offered none. I wrote to PurePlay asking for the patent's number. PurePlay refused to say. So I put my able research assistant, Mr. Sherwood Tung, on the case. He found PurePlay's patent, and more.
MMJK Inc., an entity located in San Francisco, California, owns PurePlay. It holds U.S. patent # 7,094,154. The Patentscope database of the World Intellectual Property Organization indicates that MMJK has also sought similar patent protection in many foreign countries. The patent's abstract reads thusly:
A computer networked, multi-user game system utilizing subscription based membership and alternative methods of entry, as well as the award of prizes of immediate value to the winner is described. A game tournament is hosted by a game server computer coupled to client computers operated by participating players. The games offered are games that involve elements of both skill and chance and require active player participation and decision making. A subscription-based membership is established for each player by charging a fee for a pre-determined membership time period. An alternative method of entry is provided to allow non-subscription players to participate in the tournament without payment of the fee. The non-subscribing players receive equal access to the games and at least the same chance of winning as the subscribing players, but are limited to a single entry per game or tournament. The game server hosts at least one game or tournament within the period, and players are potentially eliminated until a winning player and any runner-up players are determined. A prize pool is disbursed to the winning players in the form of cash, cash-equivalent notes, or prizes that have inherent and immediate value.
That of course offers only a shorthand description of the patent. You must carefully read its claims to know its actual scope. Or, I should say, its supposed scope; any patent can fall to a legal challenge, and business method patents prove especially susceptible to failing "non-obvious" inquiries.
[Crossposted to Midas Oracle and The Technology Liberation Front.]
Monday, June 18, 2007
Betcha.com's Hack of Anti-Internet Gaming Laws
Betcha.com recently began offering a U.S.-based, P2P, honor-based betting service. Its FAQ claims that Betcha.com avoids the reach of domestic state and federal anti-gambling laws because, "Unlike any other betting venue on the planet, Betcha bettors always retain the right to withdraw their bets . . . . Therefore, they are not 'risking' anything. No 'risk;' means no 'gamble.'" Will Betcha'com's hack of anti-internet gaming laws work?
Betcha.com has given that question a lot of thought. Its FAQ explains "(1) we spent thousands of man hours analyzing this and point and related ones, (2) our analysis encompassed U.S. federal law and the law of all 50 states, and (3) we are betting our very freedom that our analysis is spot on . . . ." As Betcha.com's management realizes, however, even that effort cannot guarantee certainty; the quoted passage continues ". . . . [but] it isn't as though some Almighty Power came down from the heavens and deemed us 'legal.' That's not the way the law works." (I have to think that Betcha.com's founder, Nick Jenkins, wrote that bit. He describes himself as a "journeyman lawyer," after all.)
Query whether Betcha.com can avoid the fate of the P2P betting service, BetBug.com, the owner of which at one time touted it as "the only legal way to offer online sports betting in the US." Now, of course, BetBug has gone on hiatus, explaining that "[w]hile we continue to believe that BetBug's true peer-to-peer software does abide by all major Federal gaming laws in the United States, the current legal environment seriously deters our chances of success."
Betcha.com would doubtless argue that its honor-based payment system distinguishes it from BetBug.com. "If you don't absolutely have to pay," Betcha.com would explain, "it's not gambling." Note, however, that to say you don't "absolutely have to pay" on a losing bet is not to say that you would risk nothing by so doing. To the contrary, you would risk seriously hurting the "Honor Rating" that Betcha.com assigns its users.
As Betcha.com's FAQ explains, "A person's Honor Rating is a measure of his trustworthiness on the Betcha Platform. Think of it as akin to a cross between a credit rating and a reputation score." We might likewise analogize it to commercial goodwill—an asset that, while intangible, can be worth quite a lot. Someone with a poor Honor Rating on Betcha.com would, like someone with a low reputation score on eBay, effectively end up out of business.
The chink in Betcha.com's legal armor thus lies in how authorities regard the Honor Rating. If they think it constitutes an intangible asset, one lost by customers who don't pay off their bets, then Betcha.com might lose its gamble against the law. I'd regret that, naturally; we all lose when the law prevents us from peacefully disposing of our property as we alone see fit. But I have to say that, were I betting on legal hacks, I'd favor BetZip.com's over Betcha.com's.
[Crossposted to Midas Oracle and The Technology Liberation Front.]