Arguing over implementation details is a pretty common thing for laws to do. Maybe it would weaken the logical consistency of their laws, but that's not really a thing that matters.

Why do states allow hunting some animals and not others? Why do states distinguish between different forms of income to tax? It's all implementation details.

I think you could make a case in separating the two, of course opening further discussion, but because sports betting takes place in a comparatively very controlled environment I think the risk profile is pretty different versus, idk, betting that the temperate will be at or above a certain point and then someone sticks a hair dryer on the thermostat[1]. Cheating can happen in sports of course, but the risk profile and real-world impact I think is quite a bit different. Worth discussing, but I think that's an important distinction.

Separately, I believe over time that prediction markets will become the source of real world truth. Why? Because money is at stake and so validity and verification matter. It'll be interesting to see how, if this comes to fruition, how laws in states like Minnesota affect news reporting and journalism. It seems likely to me that at a certain point prediction markets will buy traditional media and news outlets to hire out the fact-finding and reporting teams to ensure ground truth, and of course to use journalism as the gateway to the market. So you read an article "China disappears random person" and then at the end you click a button and bet whether that person is alive or dead or whatever.

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/polymarke...

I think sports betting is a lot less harmful than prediction markets. With sports betting if someone throws a game to get a pay day, for instance, the only real consequence is on the reputation of the sport. In prediction markets, people can do all sorts of awful things to make money as insiders..

In states which allow sports betting it is still regulated. Thet are just an illegal betting sites.

The CFTC uses the following argument in their press release: [1]

> This Minnesota law turns lawful operators and participants in prediction markets into felons overnight,” said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. “Minnesota farmers have relied on critical hedging products on weather and crop-related events for decades to mitigate their risks. Governor Walz chose to put special interests first and American farmers and innovators last.

Its an interesting angle; how do you draw the line between "a prediction market about what the temperature will be" and a futures contract that's used as a legitimate hedge? Minnesota's law is EXTREMELY broad in its definition: [2]

(e) "Prediction market" means a system that allows consumers to place a wager on the future outcome of a specified event that is not determined or affected by the performance of the parties to the contract, including but not limited to: (1) an athletic event or game of skill, or portions thereof or individual performance statistics therein; (2) any game played with cards, dice, equipment, or any mechanical or electronic device or machine; (3) war, state or national emergencies, natural or human-made disasters, mass shootings, acts of terrorism, or public health crises, or the ancillary effects thereof; (4) any event or events happening to a natural person or group of people;(5) a federal, state, or local election, or the actions or conduct of the federal, state, or local government and the government's agencies, employees, and officers; (6) legal actions, including but not limited to a civil or criminal suit, grand jury action, jury trial, settlement, plea, or conviction; (7) the death, assassination, or attempted killing of a person or group of persons, or mass casualty events; (8) short-term weather events or conditions; (9) events in popular culture, including but not limited to awards and the date a piece of entertainment will be released; and (10) whether a person will make a particular statement.

There's a bunch of exceptions that reference prior laws, which I haven't gone through, though they'd likely have to exempt, you know, Chase Bank, because if not that definition would clearly disallow Stocks.

[1] https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9233-26

[2] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/4760/versions/...

They already made the argument themselves: they’re skirting current laws by calling them financial derivatives.

But I thought the Supreme Court said online sports betting was interstate commerce and out of the domain of state legislation. Or did I get that completely wrong?

> Minnesota currently has a complete ban on sports betting.

Canterbury Park would like a word…

I mean, that's exactly why a state has the right to regulate this, historically it has been an extremely regulated activity. You can personally feel however you want, but the fact that a state does allow sports betting does not diminish this even slightly.

This has been banned for generations. It's called gambling. Of course, we all have to sit through another round of Silicon Valley pretending they've discovered some new exciting business model that's just vice.

Unlicensed gypsy cabs, SROs, shift work, patent medicines, narcotics dealing, customs fraud, and smuggling already had established market entrants I guess.