Amusing. Immediately bumped to +5 by the same bunch of knuckleheads that would condemn anyone pointing out that public sector unions are the reason for this clown world nonsense as a Nazi.

Now watch the "fired" officers get hired the next day in another jurisdiction.

If?

20-something poor students are literally bathed in rigging the instant they experience initial contact with post-secondary education in the US. They know, with metaphysical certitude, that rigging runs their world, and whatever goes on a polymarket is but the least of it. Only the clinically naïve somehow miss this.

That's where I stopped. NPR wine women language. These people have no problem with all manner of "ghastly" things going on, as long as it serves their virtues. I'm inclined to chalk this up to yet another moral panic among the privileged, and few others. When you look closely at the entire opioid conspiracy that went on in this country, you find an endless supply of NPR listening pant suited professional babushkas managing the clinics, pencil whipping the audits, and indulging their limitless altruism while safely ensconced in their gated suburban mcmansions.

Fuck these people and their latest crisis. Nothing going on at polymarket is a patch to the harm they do.

No, I'm not. I'm just not so debilitated by Trump et al. that I can't see past his relevance in US politics.

No, it's not, because it will be selective bullshit. The favored will be immune. The ebil ones will get the shit end of the stick.

I get the tightrope they're trying to walk. Completely agree with you there. Thing is, it won't work out the way their naïve techbro geek brains think it will work.

To normal people, this all looks heinous. When something inevitably happens beyond the confines of openaianthropichuggingfacewhomeverf's little sandbox and fucks with something normies actually understand, the reaction isn't going to measured and deeply cognizant of all the techbro nuance and balancing act. It will be a big fat banhammer swung with enthusiasm and great force. Politicians will make it their issue and lines will be drawn. "Experts" and regulators will spring out of the woodwork with all manner of shackles and limits.

They can't stop talking about it: they're making new headlines daily for the same incidents. They think they're simultaneously white knighting about "dangers" and also promoting their work as sci-fi next level powerful. All they're really doing it engendering a massive backlash. They'll get it when lawmakers figure out how to persecute the people responsible when LLMs attack. How many hours until an LLM is used to compromise the email/phone/whatever of some senator and all hell breaks loose?

That may have already happened....

No, I'm not going to play that game. You can google yourself.
It's a matter of such renowned concern that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not be appraised of it.

The gist of it is easy.
Either Congresspeople, Pelosi being within the top 5 or 10 in terms of returns- I can't remember- are omniscient, or they trade based on insider information they obtain in Congress.
It's a simple matter of math.
They perform better than professional investors at far, far above what would be possible given random chance. So they have some edge.
When you have a collection of people with an unspecified edge... you can guess that the edge may have something to do with that group of people.

No media source is evidence. Perhaps least of all, Fox News. Their trades are the evidence.
Did you think that was clever?

You're a fucking moron.
I said clearly that none of it rises to the evidentiary requirement for a criminal prosecution, but enough circumstantial evidence can, in fact, convict. And she's got heaps of it. Well, more accurately- her husband does.

Visa and NVIDIA trades come to recent mind, and there's the fact that they outperform professional investors by up to 50%.
I'll gladly stand with you and say, "We can't call them criminals". Because we can't.
But to say there's no evidence? No, that's flat out fucking political delusion.

Eyeroll. We don't know that eating chicken on Sunday is illegal until someone takes it to court and loses.
Give me a fucking break. Does that kind of logic strike you as insightful?

This is an assertion we can work with, but it's wrong.

More accurately, it fits the definition of what the courts have found not to be insider trading for as long as SEC rule 10b-5 has been in existence.

Trump has no fiduciary responsibility to any consumer of that information, or to the organizations he has the power to move.
While it's true that this is uncharted territory- it's uncharted in the same way that Congresscritters trading on insider information was. It required an act to make it illegal, because there's no fiduciary responsibility. That information didn't come from the inside- it came from the most outside place possible.

If we're being technical, insider trading doesn't exist.
There is securities fraud, and the SEC regulations and jurisprudence that amount to what we loosely call insider trading.
Securities fraud, of course, is illegal.

Correct.

Incorrect.
So very close to correct- but still incorrect.
Insider information is not information that the public doesn't know- if that were illegal.... lol.
Insider information is secret non-public information.
Knowing something before someone else and trading on it is not illegal.
Knowing something you weren't supposed to know because it wasn't supposed to be public and trading on it is securities fraud.

The time interval is a red herring. You are wrong without regard to it.

Na.
If that were the actual caselaw surrounding it, it would be fucking insane.

There needs to be a breach of fudiciary trust or confidence.
A third party monetizing their power to affect traded corporations, and people having a better read of that shitbag is not insider trading.

It is.

Stop using the word insider. It's a weasel word. There's nothing insider about this.

It's a markedly different form of ick.
Imagine someone finds out that the SEC is going to ban the trading of cryptocurrencies.
Imagine he tells the world.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading.... for having traded on public information about entities that did not have that information in confidence?
No, this is someone monetizing their market moving power. It's fucking vile, but there's nothing "insider" about it.

The SEC won't do shit, because it cannot do shit.
1) This isn't insider trading.
2) Reacting off of privileged access to public statements is not insider trading. It must be confidential information about a traded entity.

This is a market mover charging for early access to his movement power.
There's nothing illegal about it, though it is pretty fucking vile.