Comment by yieldcrv
21 hours ago
To me this is all the more reason to get regulatory gatekeeping out of the financial markets
If the odds in some financial products are worse than gambling while everyone can access gambling, then people should stop making a distinction under the guise of protecting investors
it just drives investors to actual gambling because they cant get the exposure they were already looking for
> it just drives investors to actual gambling because they cant get the exposure they were already looking for
This argument gets trotted out by Wall Street every decade or so, usually under the guise of "democratising" some piece of finance. It's almost always bunk.
Most investment capital is looking for safe returns. It's not competing with gambling. Even within the high-risk end of finance, the game is in turning that high risk into above-market but predictable returns through portfolio mechanics. (Fuckups aside, you can't generally portfolio mechanic your way out of the negative expectated value of a lottery ticket.)
More simply: the notion that we need to increase risk and profitiabilty for intermediaries in investments to keep people from gamblig is a false economy. Gamblers are seeking a different thrill from what financial markets are designed to provide. To the degree we have a problem, it's in letting our markets look more like casinos.
> exposure they were already looking for
Broadly speaking, if you want exposure to the economy you're investing. If you want exposure to a number that goes up, you're gambling. This is an overly-simplistic delineation. But it works for first-order estimates.
> Gamblers are seeking a different thrill from what financial markets are designed to provide.
I'd almost agree if the volume on $SPY zero day options wasn't so immense.
The same financial products are used in both gambling and smart investing. The canonical example here being options. And the restrictions on what the public can and cannot invest in are complete bullshit. You can't buy shares in a series A startup because that is deemed to be too risky for anyone who is not an "accredited" investor ("accredited" here literally means rich). But anyone who wants to can bet on sports, go to a casino, or buy a 2x levered VIX ETF.
>or buy a 2x levered VIX ETF.
Which isn't even tied to the spot price of VIX on a daily basis.
So buying VIX as a hedge against black swan events (or Donald Trump's stupidity) is a losing trade, which is wild to me.
1 reply →
You're misunderstanding the dynamics here. Modern prediction markets are 90% sports gambling by volume. The trick is that, by positioning themselves as general financial markets and accepting the corresponding regulatory gatekeeping, they're exempt from the often much stricter regulations that states put on normal sports gambling apps.
My stance has been the same long before prediction markets, long before sports gambling moved to prediction markets, and the landscape has been the same the whole time
The states regulate gambling and the feds only protect the state's rackets by restricting online gambling, and the feds regulate financial markets that are not considered gambling, we get it, its two different governments that don't see the silly user experience they've created and are both very passionate about what they do. The people regulating the financial markets think they are doing a noble good by protecting people from losing their money, and now, fast forward to the present, neither are the regulators of sports betting
I didn't write this about sports gambling or event markets and I don't care about that particular subset. There are many many many markets and financial products either accessible or not, in this paradigm
The user experience is stupid when the dumbest trades are still available after the investor has been protected
The capital wants to move so let it move
The regulators should continue mandating transparency and keeping markets operating predictably, but they need to get out the way of approval or denials of financial products or access to them, because its redundant and silly
I'm all for banning gambling too.