Podcasts about Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission opened a review of rules that may hinder fintech partnerships with futures commission merchants, swap dealers, exchanges, and clearinghouses. The review is expected to focus on outsourcing, vendor due diligence, regulator access to records, cybersecurity testing, and data retention under Regulation 1.31. Chairman Rostin Behnam and Commissioners Caroline D. Pham, Christy Goldsmith Romero, Summer K. Mersinger, and Kristin N. Johnson have emphasized modernization and risk management. Parallel actions by the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and the SEC have increased scrutiny of third-party providers. Derivatives firms rely on vendors for surveillance, analytics, and cloud services from companies such as Eventus, NICE Actimize, Chainalysis, and major cloud providers. Founders can prepare by mapping control responsibilities, aligning to SOC 2 and ISO 27001, and demonstrating compliant data retention and auditability.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A.M. Edition for June 10. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is set to propose new rules for booming prediction markets in an effort to crack down on manipulation and bets regulators determine aren't in the public interest. WSJ reporter Alexander Osipovich discusses where the CFTC is likely to draw the line – allowing most sports betting while targeting wagers on war, terrorism and assassinations. Plus, Democrat Graham Platner coasts to victory in Maine, teeing up a crucial Senate contest against Susan Collins in November. And GM follows Ford with a pivot into energy storage. Luke Vargas hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Correction: A previous version of this podcast incorrectly said the Senate had included funding for an anti-weaponization fund in the immigration bill that passed last week. In fact, the Senate bill refrained from adding language to kill the fund. (Corrected on June 10) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a program devoted to the topic of AI, Ralph welcomes first, Tyson Slocum, director of the energy group at Public Citizen, who tells us about the local backlash against the construction of data centers. Then New York Times climate writer, David Wallace-Wells, explains how the Big Tech CEOs did not count on human beings possibly rising up against them and their machines.Tyson Slocum is director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, covering the regulation of petroleum, natural gas and power markets. He serves on the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's “Energy & Environmental Markets Advisory Committee,” and frequently intervenes before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) representing the interests of household consumers.The basic question is they (Big Tech companies) are developing essentially governmental powers— governmental powers— not market powers or corporate powers. They've reached a level now where they are our government, the corporate government. And we have to escalate our urgencies to that level. It's more than just the hour is late. The hour is over. So we have to go back and respond with a completely unprecedented level of public interest, standards, etc., including whether this technology (AI) should be allowed at all.Ralph NaderI definitely see that we are in a speculative bubble. That bubble will burst. And folks within the AI industry, like Sam Altman, have been very clear where they have publicly said, when the bubble breaks, we expect to get a financial bailout because our AI applications are so important to the national interest.Tyson SlocumAnd the backlash to data centers isn't just about, oh, I'm concerned about my power rates going up or I'm concerned about the noise or the water usage. It's also a civil rights and human rights issue where people are saying, I don't like this vision that Big Tech is laying out for us that is going to be produced in this building down the street from our community.Tyson SlocumDavid Wallace-Wells is a columnist and staff writer at the New York Times, where he writes a weekly newsletter on climate change, technology, and the future of the planet. He is the author of the book, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. His recent feature in the New York Times Magazine is “AI Populism is Here. And No One is Ready.”Just over the last six months, there's been a huge surge in anti-AI and in particular anti-data center organizing and activism in the U.S. And you can see that on the ground where you see huge crowds coming to town halls to protest new data centers that are being proposed. You see some towns that have approved those data centers literally having their entire city council voted out of office as a result. And you see it in these surveys where within the span of just a few months. Huge sentiment flips among the American public from being basically agnostic about AI with some misgivings and some optimism to pretty striking majority opposition to the technology and the infrastructure build out that it requires.David Wallace-WellsThis (AI) is a technological revolution that has been designed and is being built by an extremely small number of people with very particular idiosyncratic, in certain ways, I think, somewhat sociopathic worldviews.David Wallace-WellsNews 6/5/26* Our top story this week comes from Congress, where the House has, at long last, successfully pushed through a War Powers Resolution on Iran. As NPR notes “The resolution had originally been set for a vote two weeks ago, but Republican leaders sent House members home early for a May recess when it appeared the largely Democratic-backed measure had enough Republican votes for passage.” However, this did not substantially erode Republican support and the resolution passed by a margin of 215 to 208, with four Republicans, led by Thomas Massie, voting for a cessation of hostilities. The measure now heads to the Senate, where Democrats have been pressing the matter as well but face an uphill battle, and even if it passes through the upper chamber, President Trump is likely to veto the measure if it arrives on his desk. Moreover, House progressives are now pushing a new War Powers Resolution, this one focusing on Lebanon. POLITICO reports Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib forced a vote this Thursday on a resolution calling for the removal of U.S. troops from Lebanon in seven days, despite opposition from the leadership of her own party. The resolution failed by a wide margin, but still garnered a respectable 92 votes, including support from Congressman Massie. Symbolic though they may be, these votes show a growing backlash to Trump's military adventurism abroad, particularly in the Middle East. With oil prices continuing to rise, this discontent shows no sign of abating.* The main news this week however were the primaires. Tuesday saw a wave of major Democratic primaries across the country. Faiz Shakir, longtime advisor to Bernie Sanders and Executive Director of More Perfect Union, reports that election night was a “clean sweep for Bernie's endorsements” with five out of five of these candidates set to win the Democratic nomination in their respective races. One race Shakir highlighted was Sam Forstag's bid for Congress in Montana's 1st congressional district. Forstag, a firefighter – technically a “smokejumper,” who parachutes into remote areas to extinguish wildfires – earned the endorsements of AOC, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal and others, as well as many unions, in addition to that of Senator Sanders. Meanwhile in the Montana Senate race, Alani Bankhead has triumphed in the Democratic primary. According to Semafor, “Republicans suspect Bankhead will essentially cede the race to [independent candidate Seth] Bodnar (despite her denials), which would make the general election more competitive.” Bodnar is the former president of the University of Montana and his campaign is backed by former Democratic Senator Jon Tester. One recent poll of a head-to-head match up of Bodnar against Republican nominee Kurt Alme shows the candidates in a dead heat.* In New Jersey, two more Sanders-endorsed candidates have emerged victorious: Analilia Mejia and Dr. Adam Hamawy. Mejia won the special election to replace now-Governor Mikie Sherill in April, beating out former Congressman Tom Malinowksi, the heavy favorite in that race. Mejia is very likely to win this seat again in November, as she already defeated the Republican nominee, Joe Hathaway, in the special election. This from MorristownGreen. Perhaps more surprisingly is the victory of Dr. Adam Hamawy. Now a plastic surgeon, he has distinguished himself for his heroism: saving the life of now-Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth when her Blackhawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, serving as a first responder to the 9/11 attacks, and most recently, for his work in Gaza. As the Intercept puts it, “In 2024, [Hamawy]...went to Gaza to provide medical aid to Palestinians wounded by Israeli forces and was temporarily trapped there after Israel closed the Rafah border crossing. When the crossing was reopened, Hamawy was among a small group who refused to leave on demands that more medical workers be let in.” Hamawy's progressive policy platform includes support for Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and opposing military aid to Israel. He is almost guaranteed to win this D+13 seat, succeeding Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.* The candidates Bernie endorsed in California also prevailed, with Randy Villegas poised to win his primary in the state's 22nd congressional district and Jane Kim winning her race for California Insurance Commissioner, but the results from the state overall are more mixed. As of now, Republican Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton leads in the count, with centrist Democrat and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra in a close second and progressive billionaire Tom Steyer in third. However, as the count continues, Steyer's margin continues to improve while Hilton's ebbs away – meaning the runoff could end up being Becerra vs. Steyer, though it is still too early to say. A similar dynamic is unfolding in Los Angeles, where incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is ensured a slot in the general election while her opponents – Councilwoman Nithya Raman to her left and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt to her right – continue to duke it out for the second slot. With California's notoriously glacial counting pace and the LA Times reporting that millions of ballots remain to be counted, all we can do is watch and wait.* However, up in Minnesota, another Bernie-backed candidate is on the road to victory. On Tuesday, Peggy Flanagan, the Lieutenant Governor seeking the Senate seat being vacated by Amy Klobuchar, overwhelmingly won the endorsement of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Her closest rival, Congresswoman Angie Craig, did not even bother to attend the party convention. While Craig decried the supposed anti-democratic nature of a party convention endorsement, Flanagan posted a video telling Craig “If you can't show up and face your own party, then you're not ready to face Republicans,” per the Nation. Flanagan can boast the endorsement of many high-profile progressives in addition to Sanders, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and Minnesota's own Tina Smith, among many others. If elected, she would be the first ever Native American woman to serve as Governor of an American state.* More much-publicized endorsements came this week from AOC and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who both endorsed DSA-aligned legislative candidates, but as City and State NY notes, not the same ones. Mamdani gave his blessing to Darializa Avila Chevalier, a DSA-backed candidate running to unseat powerful Rep. Adriano Espaillat who is seeking his sixth term in Congress. Polling shows Avila Chevalier runs ahead of Espaillat when voters learn about her platform, but lags behind due to low name recognition – something the Zohran endorsement is sure to help remedy. Meanwhile AOC issued her endorsement of four DSA candidates for the state legislature. This all suggests that the two titans of the New York City Democratic Socialist movement are coordinating – with Zohran seeking to boost DSA's prospects without alienating the New York state establishment and vice versa for AOC – but that is nothing more than a hunch.* Looking southward, lame duck Republican Senator John Cornyn this week posted an article on his official Twitter page titled “Libertarian Ted Brown courts disaffected conservative voters in Texas' U.S. Senate race,” from Houston Public Media. Senator Cornyn's comment – “Ruh roh” – set off a firestorm of speculation that this was a subtle endorsement of the Libertarian's campaign and intended to undermine the campaign of his erstwhile opponent and victor of the Republican Senate primary, Ken Paxton. While Cornyn has furiously denied that this is in any way an endorsement of Brown, calling even the “characterization” that he is “promoting” this candidate “fake news,” there is little doubt that posting about Brown from his official account constitutes a promotion of the campaign, albeit not an endorsement. It will be interesting to see whether Cornyn takes other subtle, or not so subtle, digs at Paxton over the course of the campaign, given that he seems to hold a substantial degree of antipathy towards the Texas Attorney General.* Our next two stories come to us from Florida. First, in Florida's 24th congressional district, the National Journal reports longtime Congresswoman Frederica Wilson will not seek reelection. We recently discussed Congresswoman Wilson on this segment when it was revealed that she had been MIA from the House for weeks following an undisclosed eye surgery. Wilson is 82 years old. The National Journal couches this story in the context of aged members of Congress accepting, or more often refusing, to pass the torch. In its gerontocracy tracker, it highlights members like Doris Matsui, John Garamendi, Jim Clyburn and Maxine Waters, all of whom are 80 years old or older, who are actively seeking reelection this cycle.* Meanwhile, in Florida's 20th district, the Sunshine State's redistricting initiative has put the historically Black district in jeopardy. Under the newly drawn lines, the frontrunner in this seat is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and though she claims the Congressional Black Caucus and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told her that “they know I know our community” the CBC has not endorsed her and Rep. Yvette Clarke, the CBC's chairwoman, said the caucus did not encourage Wasserman Schultz to run in the district. However, there are currently four Black candidates vying for the seat previously held by Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, including Cherfilus-McCormick herself as well as progressive challenger Elijah Manley, former Mayor of Broward County Dale Holness and Luther Campbell the former rapper more famously known as Uncle Luke. Now, according to the Miami Herald, all four of these candidates are meeting to “discuss coalescing behind one candidate.” Manley is quoted in this piece saying that while they have not reached an agreement, they “did agree that we needed to consolidate,” and he said the “conversations are going on. They have been very constructive and fruitful.” It is encouraging that in the wake of Callais decision we are beginning to see a more strategic approach to Black political representation, which has been too long monopolized by powerful longtime incumbents intent on nothing so much as preserving their own fiefdoms.* Finally, in a story shocking to exactly no one, Axios is out with a new report showing that the National Guard occupation of Washington D.C. has done little to reduce crime in the District. Per a new study by the centrist Niskansen Center, while the security theater of the deployment seems to have deterred “opportunistic” property crime, violent crime remained on the same downward trajectory it had been on since before the deployment. Moreover, the promised co-benefit – that the presence of the Guard would free up the Metropolitan Police Department to focus on high-crime areas – did not materialize at all. Despite these lackluster results, President Trump plans to double the National Guard presence in Washington – which already costs $1.5 million a day – ahead of the 250th anniversary events this summer. This is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money especially now that we know for sure how little impact this hostile occupation is actually having on driving down violent crime.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: First Speed Limit LawOn May 21, 1901, Connecticut became the first U.S. state to pass a law regulating the speed of motor vehicles. The law set a speed limit of 12 miles per hour in cities and 15 miles per hour on country roads. That may sound almost comically slow now, but at the beginning of the twentieth century, the automobile was still a new and disruptive technology. Roads were shared by pedestrians, horses, carriages, bicycles, and early automobiles, often without clear rules about who had priority or how fast anyone could travel. Connecticut's law reflected a growing legal problem: the common law of negligence could punish dangerous driving after an accident, but legislatures increasingly saw the need to prevent danger before it happened. Speed limits were one of the earliest ways states tried to turn automobile use from a private novelty into a regulated public activity. The law also showed how technological change often forces legal systems to create new categories of public safety regulation.Before automobiles, road law had developed around animals, wagons, and local travel; cars introduced greater speed, heavier machinery, and new risks of injury. By setting numerical limits, Connecticut moved toward a more modern model of traffic law, where drivers could know in advance what conduct was illegal. This kind of rule also made enforcement easier for police and courts because the question was no longer only whether someone drove “recklessly,” but whether they exceeded a stated limit. Other states and municipalities soon followed with their own automobile rules, licensing systems, registration requirements, and broader traffic codes. The Connecticut statute is a reminder that everyday legal rules often begin as responses to unfamiliar technologies. What started as a modest speed limit helped lay the groundwork for the complex system of motor-vehicle regulation that now shapes daily life on American roads.The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has sued Minnesota to stop the state from enforcing a new law banning prediction markets. Minnesota became the first state to enact a total ban on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which let users trade contracts based on the outcome of future events, including sports and elections. Governor Tim Walz signed the law on May 18, 2026, and it is scheduled to take effect on August 1. The CFTC argues that Minnesota's law conflicts with federal authority because prediction-market contracts are derivatives regulated by the agency under federal law. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said the law would effectively turn lawful market operators and users into criminals.Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office is reviewing the lawsuit and raised concerns that prediction markets can be addictive and harmful, especially to young and low-income people. Kalshi and Polymarket both welcomed the federal challenge, arguing that state bans undermine the federal regulatory system and may push users toward offshore platforms. The dispute is part of a broader fight between state gambling regulators and prediction-market companies over whether these products are financial contracts or illegal wagering. The CFTC has also sued other states to block enforcement actions against prediction-market operators. It recently obtained an order stopping Arizona from pursuing a criminal case against Kalshi, while Nevada remains the only state with a court-enforced ban against Kalshi. Massachusetts is also considering whether to uphold an injunction that would block Kalshi from offering sports-event contracts there.US regulator sues to block Minnesota's first-in-nation ban on prediction markets | ReutersTwo police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 attack have sued to stop a nearly $1.8 billion fund created under President Donald Trump's administration. Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges filed the lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. They argue that the fund is an improper use of taxpayer money and could be used to compensate January 6 defendants or groups tied to political violence. The complaint describes the fund as a “slush fund” and seeks a court order blocking any payments from it. The fund was created after Trump settled a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns during his first term.As part of that settlement, the Justice Department established a fund to compensate people who claim they were victims of political “weaponization.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers that the fund is not limited to January 6 defendants and could apply to people from any political party. He also said the eligibility standard is broad and tied to claims of having experienced political weaponization. Dunn has publicly described the physical and racist abuse he faced during the Capitol attack, as well as his later struggles with PTSD. Hodges was seriously assaulted during the riot in an incident captured on widely circulated video and has also testified before Congress about his experience.Police officers who guarded Capitol sue to block Trump's $1.8 billion ‘slush fund' | ReutersLee Mendelson Film Productions, the company behind A Charlie Brown Christmas, has sued GameMill Entertainment in Manhattan federal court over music used in the video game Snoopy & The Great Mystery Club. The company claims GameMill copied or closely imitated Vince Guaraldi's well-known Peanuts music without getting the proper license. According to the lawsuit, GameMill had permission to use Peanuts characters in the game but not Guaraldi's compositions.The complaint focuses on music that allegedly resembles “Linus and Lucy” and “Skating,” two songs strongly associated with the 1965 holiday special. Mendelson argues that GameMill wanted the emotional and nostalgic effect of the original Peanuts soundtrack while avoiding the cost of licensing it. The lawsuit says the game's background music is substantially similar to Guaraldi's work and could make players think they were hearing the actual songs or recordings. A Charlie Brown Christmas remains a major part of American holiday culture, and Guaraldi's soundtrack has sold millions of copies. GameMill's game, released in 2025, follows Snoopy as he solves mysteries. The production company is accusing GameMill of copyright infringement and is seeking monetary damages. Neither side had immediately commented on the complaint when the article was published.‘A Charlie Brown Christmas' maker sues over music in ‘Snoopy' video game | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of WSJ's Take On the Week, co-hosts Miriam Gottfried and Telis Demos discuss what's beyond the surge in semiconductor companies like Broadcom and Micron. They examine economist Ed Yardeni's "Buzz Lightyear theory"—which says that demand for compute power will increase to infinity and beyond—that has led to S&P 500 earnings growth expectations surpassing the 2000 tech bubble peak. Plus, they analyze the impact of the fatal hantavirus outbreak on cruise-line stocks. After the break, billionaire philanthropist and former energy trader John Arnold joins Miriam and Telis at a live taping of the show at the WSJ's Future of Everything event. Arnold offers an analysis of how the U.S.-Iran conflict is shaping oil markets and discusses the factors preventing crude oil from reaching initial forecasts of $150 to $200 a barrel. He details how the Iran war underscores America's energy-security strengths, which should prompt hyperscalers to prioritize the U.S. for data-center expansion over Middle Eastern alternatives. Finally, he talks about a new focus of Arnold Ventures—the call for guardrails on prediction markets and sports betting—arguing that gambling regulation should remain under state jurisdiction rather than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, and Miriam Gottfried, WSJ's investing and wealth management reporter, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@wsj.com. To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of WSJ.com Further Reading: Memory Makers Are the Hottest Thing in Tech. Are They Making Too Much Money? Why Almost Everyone Loses—Except a Few Sharks—on Prediction Markets The 33-Day ‘Atlantic Odyssey' That Turned Into a Hantavirus Nightmare U.S. Regulator Sues New York State for Prediction Markets Crackdown For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to WSJ.com, WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter. Follow Miriam Gottfried here and Telis Demos here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More regulators are concerned about private credit  The bad news just keeps coming for the private credit industry. If you're not sure what private credit is, it is mostly middle market business loans extended by asset managers. People often don't realize that these asset managers don't have the same strict supervision that banks have on their loans. Investors may be starting to realize the risk because in the first quarter of 2026, private credit investors requested $20 billion from some of the private credit funds. Unfortunately, they only got a little bit over 50% of what they requested or about $11 billion. This could lead to higher redemption requests above $20 billion in the second quarter as more investors become disenchanted with private loan funds. The Securities Exchange Commission over the past few months has opened several enforcement investigations of large private credit managers. The Treasury department is also requesting information from private fund managers and insurance firms to understand their businesses more. The Securities Exchange Commission is the primary regulator for the private credit industry, but the private funds don't regularly disclose holdings and don't reveal much about private credit on the forms that are used by the SEC. It is quite the dilemma for these private credit funds, and I do believe it will continue to get worse because I am confident that the SEC and the Treasury department will find areas that could really hurt the individual investor due to the lack of disclosures.    Could prediction markets be available in your IRA soon?   Bitwise, Roundhill, and GraniteShares have filed applications with the SEC to launch exchange-traded funds tied to event contracts. If approved, these products could potentially be held in self-directed IRAs. The initial proposals appear relatively narrow in scope, focusing on outcomes like which party wins the White House in 2028 and which party controls the House and Senate after this year's midterm elections. While these types of products can sound appealing—and successful bets could generate strong returns—they also carry a clear risk: if you're wrong, you lose your entire investment.  One of the main concerns is how complex and speculative these instruments are, especially in the context of retirement accounts. Event contracts are fundamentally different from traditional investments like stocks or bonds, and their all-or-nothing nature makes them more like betting rather than than long-term investing. Are we going to soon allow withdrawals from retirement assets in Vegas so people can blay blackjack? The odds may be better there than on some of these “event contracts.”  There are also broader legal and regulatory questions still being debated. Some states argue that certain event contracts—particularly those tied to sports outcomes—should be classified as sports gambling, which would place them under state jurisdiction rather than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Tribal groups have also raised concerns, arguing that such products could infringe on their sovereign rights to regulate gambling on tribal lands.  At the moment, sports-related event contract ETFs are not part of these filings, but that could evolve depending on how the legal landscape develops. If courts ultimately allow these types of products and current applications move forward, it's possible that similar filings tied to sports outcomes could follow.  Regardless of how regulation unfolds, it's important to understand the nature of these products. While they may be packaged as ETFs, their structure and risk profile differ significantly from traditional investments. Anyone considering them should be clear on one point: this is not investing in the conventional sense—it's a high-risk, all-or-nothing proposition that is really just gambling.    Who offers a better reward program? The big gas stations or Costco?  When I pull into a Shell gas station, I always see a pitch on the screen about getting up to $0.30 back per gallon. Other stations like Chevron run similar promos, which got me wondering: how many people actually sign up—and are these deals better than Costco's credit card with 4% cashback on gas?  Right off the bat, gas station rewards programs feel overly complicated. Once you dig in, you'll find caps, conditions, and purchase limits that make it tough to consistently get the maximum benefit. In the best-case scenario, you might get around $0.35 off per gallon. If gas is $6 per gallon, that works out to roughly a 5.8% discount. Not bad—but actually hitting that number regularly is another story.  Costco's credit card, on the other hand, offers a straightforward 5% cashback at Costco gas stations and 4% cashback at other gas stations (up to $7,000 per year). At $6 per gallon, that's about $0.24 back per gallon; at $5 per gallon, it's $0.20. To hit the annual cap, you'd need to buy around 22.4 gallons per week at $6 per gallon, or about 26.9 gallons per week at $5.  If you're filling up at a Costco station, the math can tilt even more in your favor. Gas there is often $0.10–$0.30 cheaper per gallon to begin with. Pair that with 5% cashback, and your effective savings climb even further: about $0.25 per gallon at $5 gas, or $0.30 at $6.  So, when you're standing at the pump at Shell or Chevron and see an offer for a flashy rewards program, it's worth pausing. The headline numbers can look appealing, but the real-world value often depends on how much you drive and how closely you follow the program's rules. For many people, a simple, consistent cashback card—especially one tied to already lower fuel prices—may end up being the better, less stressful option.    Is there a bubble in sports teams?  We've spent plenty of time talking about stretched valuations in stocks, the frenzy in crypto, and the rise of prediction markets—but sports teams may deserve a spot in that conversation too. Valuations across major leagues are climbing at a remarkable pace.  The NFL is leading the charge, with the average team now valued at $7.65 billion, up from roughly $1 billion in 2010. NBA franchises tell a similar story: the average team is worth $5.52 billion, an 18% jump from just last year. Go back 15 years, and the average NBA team was valued around $369 million—an increase of 1,396%. By comparison, the S&P 500's roughly 425% return over that same period looks modest.  Major League Baseball is seeing it too, with the San Diego Padres reportedly finalizing a record sale at $3.9 billion. As prices climb, fewer buyers can afford entry into the top leagues, pushing capital into smaller or emerging sports that may carry more risk.  Rick Horrow, CEO of Horrow Sports Ventures, highlighted this trend: “Major League Cricket was at $5 million. Now the value's at $30 million and going higher. Major League Pickleball two years ago was at $5 million. Now the value is at $15 million or higher.”   Women's sports are also experiencing rapid growth. The National Women's Soccer League recently awarded an expansion franchise in Columbus, Ohio for $205 million—a $40 million increase over the fee paid by Arthur Blank (The Falcon's owner) for Atlanta's team in November. That deal itself was a sharp jump from the $110 million paid by Denver in January of last year. For perspective, expansion fees were around $2 million as recently as 2022.  The key question is whether these valuations are supported by underlying fundamentals. While interest is rising—about 1.2 million people watched the NWSL final, up 22% year over year—it still trails far behind the audiences of major leagues. Game 7 of the NBA Finals drew 16.4 million viewers, the World Series drew 25.9 million, and the Super Bowl surpassed 127 million.  Media rights are central to this dynamic. The NFL signed an 11-year, $111 billion deal in 2021 and is already eyeing further increases. The NBA followed with its own 11-year, $77 billion agreement starting in 2025. If these massive contracts continue to absorb the bulk of media spending, smaller leagues may struggle to sustain their current growth trajectories.  Most people will never be in a position to buy a sports franchise, but the broader trend is still worth watching and I believe is just yet another example of excessive valuations in today's markets.     Financial Planning: Understanding the Relative Cost of IRMAA  IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) is best understood not as a flat cost, but as an additional marginal tax rate layered on top of federal and state income taxes. When your income exceeds certain thresholds, your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums increase, and because the adjustment applies for the entire year once you cross the threshold, even by $1, it creates a “tax cliff.” For example, in 2026 the first IRMAA tier for married couples begins at $218,000 of income. At that point, Part B premiums increase from $202.90 to $284.10 and Part D increases $14.50, resulting in an additional annual cost of $2,296.80. Since this tier spans $56,000 of income (from $218,000 to $274,000), that cost translates to roughly a 4.1% marginal “tax” on income within that range, but only if you fully utilize the entire bracket. If you only exceed the threshold by a small amount, you still incur the full $2,296.80 cost, which means the effective marginal rate on those extra dollars can be extremely high. When layered on top of a 22% federal bracket and 9.3% California tax rate, the true marginal rate is about 35.4% if the bracket is filled, but can be significantly higher if it is not. This framing is critical when evaluating strategies like Roth conversions or large withdrawals, because it highlights that the decision isn't just about stated tax brackets, it's about the all-in marginal rate including IRMAA. In practice, this means it is often beneficial to either stay below an IRMAA threshold or intentionally “fill up” the bracket once crossed, ensuring the additional premium cost is spread across the full income range rather than concentrated on just a few dollars.    Companies Discussed: Tractor Supply Company (TSCO), Intel Corporation (INTC) & The Procter & Gamble Company (PG)

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi are exploding in value—but critics warn they're just gambling in disguise. With billions at stake and loose oversight from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, this episode dives into the dangers of corruption, sports manipulation, and the normalization of betting on everything. Is this innovation—or a dangerous step backward for society?

In this week's episode of WSJ's Take On the Week, co-hosts Miriam Gottfried and Telis Demos look at why the Magnificent Seven stocks—including Microsoft, Meta, and Google parent Alphabet—are losing their luster. Are investors finally demanding to see results from AI spending, or are they content with the continued AI infrastructure spending? Then, they dive into the residential real-estate cycle, where we've seen national rent growth hit a decade low. Could deeply discounted multifamily Real Estate Investment Trusts, or REITs, be the value play of the year?  Then, Telis and Miriam confront prediction markets, which have been in the news lately for high-profile arrests of insiders accused of trading on confidential information. They are joined by former Susquehanna International Group trader Andrew Courtney, co-founder of prediction markets platform Kalshinomics, who digs into the mechanics of these zero-sum contracts, insider trading and the ongoing legal battles with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission over their classification. Courtney details how professional market makers provide the liquidity that distinguishes them from a bet against the house. And he gives his take on how investors should engage with prediction markets. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, and Miriam Gottfried, WSJ's investing and wealth management reporter, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@wsj.com. To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of WSJ.com Further Reading U.S. Soldier Charged With Using Classified Information to Bet on Maduro's Ouster  White House Warns Staff Not to Place Bets on Prediction Markets Amid Iran War Trio of Polymarket Accounts Made $600,000 Betting on Iran Cease-Fire Court Sides With Kalshi in Major Ruling for Prediction Markets The AI Spending Spree Is Far from Over The U.S. Has More Fancy Apartments Than It Is Able to Fill Rent Price Increase Puts Market on Path to Landlord-Friendly Environment For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to WSJ.com, WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter.  Follow Miriam Gottfried here and Telis Demos here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stu Burguiere is joined in Washington D.C. by Michael S. Selig, Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to answer your most burning prediction market questions with behind-the-scenes information straight from the source. Subscribe to ‘Predictable w/ Stu' at PredictableShow.com and be sure to follow on your favorite social media platforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Nix v. HeddenOn April 24, 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court received submissions in Nix v. Hedden, the famous case asking whether a tomato should be treated as a fruit or a vegetable. The question sounds like the setup to a joke, but the legal issue was practical and financial: under the Tariff Act of 1883, imported vegetables were taxed, while fruits were not.That meant the classification of tomatoes had real consequences for importers bringing tomatoes into the United States. The plaintiffs argued that tomatoes are fruits in the botanical sense because they grow from the flower of the plant and contain seeds. The government argued that, whatever botanists might say, tomatoes were commonly bought, sold, cooked, and eaten as vegetables.The Supreme Court sided with the government. In its decision, the Court held that the tariff law should be read according to the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable,” not their technical scientific meanings. Justice Horace Gray explained that tomatoes are usually served with dinner, not dessert, and are understood in common speech as vegetables.The case became a lasting example of how courts interpret statutes by looking at the way language is used in everyday life. It also shows that legal disputes often turn less on abstract definitions than on context, usage, and consequences. Nix v. Hedden remains memorable because it turns a simple grocery-store question into a lesson about statutory interpretation: the tomato may be a fruit to a botanist, but for tariff law in 1893, it was a vegetable.Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged U.S. Army Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke with allegedly using classified information to profit from prediction-market bets tied to a military raid involving former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Van Dyke, who was stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, allegedly helped plan and carry out the operation that resulted in Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, being brought to New York in January.Prosecutors say he began trading on Polymarket markets related to Maduro and Venezuela on Dec. 26, 2025, shortly before the Jan. 3, 2026 raid. According to the indictment, Van Dyke made more than $400,000 from those trades. The government alleges that, after making the money, he tried to hide the proceeds. He is charged with violating the Commodity Exchange Act, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also brought a related enforcement action against him. Van Dyke was expected to appear first in federal court in North Carolina before later appearing in the Southern District of New York. Counsel information for him was not immediately available.Soldier Aware Of Maduro Raid Bet On Polymarket, Feds Say - Law360U.S. District Judge Esther Salas warned that proposed federal data privacy legislation could undermine state laws meant to protect judges and other public officials from having their personal information exposed online. Salas has pushed for stronger privacy protections since 2020, when a lawyer went to her New Jersey home and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. Congress later passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which shields federal judges' personal information online. Since then, more than a dozen states, including New Jersey, New York, and Maryland, have adopted similar protections for state judges, and some laws also cover law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and family members.Salas raised her concerns at an American Bar Association conference in Boston as House lawmakers consider federal privacy bills that would create national standards and preempt state laws. The bills, called the GUARD Financial Data Act and the SECURE Data Act, would require covered companies to limit collection of consumer data and give people rights to access or delete their information. But unlike New Jersey's Daniel's Law, the federal proposals would not let individuals sue companies for privacy violations. Salas said replacing stronger state protections with weaker federal rules could put judges across the country at greater risk. House committee representatives either declined to comment or did not respond.NJ judge whose son was killed warns against weakening state data privacy laws | ReutersSpirit Aviation told a New York bankruptcy judge that it is in advanced talks with the federal government over a major financing package that could help keep its second Chapter 11 case on track. The airline's lawyer, Marshall Huebner of Davis Polk, confirmed that negotiations are underway but did not verify reports about the possible size of the package or whether the government would receive an ownership stake. He said the proposed funding could do more than simply support the bankruptcy case and could position Spirit to compete strongly after restructuring. Spirit plans to seek court approval of the financing on April 30.The financing discussions come after the war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran caused jet fuel prices to rise sharply, disrupting Spirit's existing reorganization plan. The airline had previously proposed canceling general unsecured claims and restructuring around support from secured noteholders, but it postponed seeking approval to send that plan to creditors. Judge Sean Lane approved a $533 million sale of about 20 aircraft to CSDS Aircraft and also granted Spirit a 90-day extension of its exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan. Spirit also disclosed that it missed an interest payment, triggering a default under its debtor-in-possession loan. The noteholder group funding much of that loan said it intends to enforce its rights and would oppose any relief that harms the lenders.Spirit In ‘Advanced' Talks With Gov't For Ch. 11 Financing - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Adams Sworn in as VPOn April 21, 1789, John Adams was sworn in as the first Vice President of the United States, becoming one of the earliest officials to assume office under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. His inauguration followed the formation of the new federal government and helped signal that the Constitution was not merely theoretical but fully operational. At the time, the role of Vice President was not yet clearly defined, leaving Adams to shape many of its early norms through practice rather than precedent. The Constitution assigned him the duty of presiding over the Senate, placing him at the intersection of the executive and legislative branches. This hybrid function raised early questions about separation of powers, a core principle embedded in the constitutional structure. Adams himself reportedly found the position frustrating, as it carried limited executive authority while restricting his participation in Senate debates. Despite these limitations, his service helped establish procedural expectations for how the Vice President would engage in legislative affairs.The peaceful assumption of office by Adams also reinforced the legitimacy of the new constitutional system at a time when its durability was uncertain. It demonstrated that leadership transitions could occur within a stable legal framework rather than through upheaval or force. This moment contributed to the broader development of constitutional governance by modeling adherence to formal legal processes. Early officeholders like Adams played a critical role in translating the Constitution's text into functioning institutions. His tenure also highlighted ambiguities in the document, many of which would later be addressed through political practice and constitutional amendments. Over time, the vice presidency evolved into a more active executive role, but its foundation was laid during this initial transition period. Adams's swearing-in remains a key example of how early constitutional actors shaped the practical meaning of the nation's governing document.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revisit its denial of a whistleblower award to an anonymous claimant. The court granted a partial win to the individual, sending the case back to the agency for a clearer explanation of its reasoning. Although the court's full opinion remains sealed, earlier oral arguments suggested the judges were focused on whether the claimant's actions met the legal definition of “voluntary” under Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC had previously rejected the claim, stating that it only learned of the information after contacting the individual, who had first shared allegations with the media. The claimant argued that this sequence should not disqualify them from receiving an award.Whistleblower awards under Dodd-Frank apply when provided information leads to enforcement actions with penalties exceeding $1 million, with awards ranging from 10% to 30% of collected sanctions. Because of this structure, the denied award in this case could amount to a significant financial loss. The court's decision signals concern that the SEC may not have adequately justified its interpretation of the law. The ruling does not guarantee the claimant will receive an award but requires the agency to reconsider and better articulate its position. The case highlights ongoing tension over how strictly the SEC defines eligibility requirements for whistleblowers. It also underscores the importance of transparency in agency decision-making when financial incentives and legal protections are at stake.DC Circ. Orders SEC Rethink Of Whistleblower Claim - Law360A Reuters investigation found that Tesla, Inc. has paid little to no U.S. federal income tax over most of its history, including reporting a zero-dollar tax bill for 2025 despite generating substantial revenue. While some of these low tax obligations are explained by earlier business losses and government incentives for clean energy, the report highlights another major factor: profit shifting through foreign subsidiaries. Specifically, Tesla units in the Netherlands and Singapore recorded about $18 billion in profits that were not taxed in those countries and likely avoided U.S. taxation as well. Experts cited in the report estimate this strategy may have reduced Tesla's U.S. tax burden by more than $400 million.The mechanism appears tied to transferring intellectual property rights to overseas entities, allowing profits tied to those assets to be recorded in lower-tax jurisdictions. One Dutch-linked entity, structured as a partnership, reportedly had no employees and functioned mainly as a conduit for income. These arrangements are legal and commonly used by multinational corporations, though they remain controversial and are often criticized as exploiting gaps in international tax systems. The findings contrast with past public comments by Elon Musk, who has expressed skepticism about using aggressive tax loopholes. The report found no evidence that Tesla violated tax laws, but it underscores ongoing debates about corporate tax practices and transparency.Musk scorned “shady” loopholes, yet offshore tax tricks likely saved Tesla hundreds of millions | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc., finding that challengers are likely to prove the deal would harm competition. The ruling came from a California federal court, which issued a preliminary injunction stopping the companies from integrating while lawsuits from DirecTV and several state attorneys general move forward. The court said the merger could lead to higher fees for distributors, fewer choices for consumers, and reductions in local journalism. It also warned that combining the companies would increase leverage to threaten “blackouts,” where broadcasters pull channels during fee disputes, potentially leaving viewers without access to sports and local news.The judge emphasized that Nexstar must keep Tegna operating as an independent competitor for now, noting that further integration could cause irreversible harm, including layoffs and station closures. Although the deal had already received approval from regulators like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, the court found that oversight did not sufficiently address antitrust concerns. State officials and DirecTV argue the merger would create the largest local TV station owner in the U.S., reaching a vast majority of households and concentrating too much control in one company. Nexstar has said it will appeal the decision and continues to defend the merger as beneficial for local broadcasting.To understand the stakes, it helps to know what these companies control. Nexstar is already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., operating more than 200 stations affiliated with major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, and it also owns the cable network NewsNation. Tegna owns dozens of local TV stations across major markets, many of which also carry network programming and produce local news. DirecTV, while not a broadcaster, distributes these channels to subscribers and would be directly affected by any increase in fees. Together, Nexstar and Tegna would control over 250 stations nationwide, raising concerns about pricing power, reduced competition, and the future of local news coverage.Nexstar-Tegna Deal Blocked Amid DirecTV, AGs' Challenge - Law360My column for Bloomberg this week argues that states rushing to tax prediction markets are trying to regulate something they haven't yet clearly defined. That uncertainty creates a real risk: policymakers could end up taxing the wrong base entirely. Until there is clarity about what these platforms actually are, restraint is the more defensible approach.Prediction markets have grown rapidly, with trading volume skyrocketing in just a few years. That growth has drawn attention from lawmakers at both the state and federal levels, but the central question remains unresolved. If these platforms are gambling, then state sports betting frameworks might apply. If they function more like financial instruments, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And if they are neither, forcing them into an existing category may create more confusion than clarity.I explain that the case for treating them like gambling platforms is understandable, since users are effectively betting on real-world outcomes. But the comparison breaks down when you look at how these platforms operate. Unlike sportsbooks, they don't act as “the house” or take on risk. Instead, they function more like exchanges, matching users who take opposite sides of a contract and earning revenue through transaction fees rather than betting outcomes.This distinction matters for tax policy. Sportsbooks are typically taxed on gross gaming revenue, which reflects the house's winnings after payouts. That model assumes operators profit from users losing bets. Prediction markets don't fit that structure, because they don't generate meaningful gaming revenue in the traditional sense. Treating trading volume as taxable revenue risks overstating the size of the tax base.At the same time, the CFTC has asserted federal authority and begun challenging state efforts in court. As these disputes move through the judiciary, there is a growing possibility of conflicting rulings that could ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if states succeed in the short term, their tax systems could rest on shaky legal ground.I also emphasize that prediction markets are inherently borderless digital platforms, which makes fragmented state-by-state regulation difficult to sustain. If they are closer to financial exchanges than local gambling operations, a coherent federal framework may be more appropriate.A more durable solution would be a federal system that taxes platform fees rather than mischaracterized gaming revenue. But that approach would require policymakers to explain why prediction markets deserve distinct treatment from other financial intermediaries. Once the gambling analogy is set aside, that justification becomes harder.None of this eliminates a role for states, particularly in areas like consumer protection and fraud enforcement. But the core questions—what prediction markets are, how they generate income, and how they should be taxed—are national in scope and should be treated that way. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Democrats plan to force more votes on Iran war powers resolutions. The head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission testifies about his agency's request for a funding increase. And more Cabinet officials will be on the Hill as the fiscal 2027 budget season gets into full swing. David Higgins has your CQ Morning Briefing for Monday, April 13, 2026.

-A 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled on Monday that New Jersey has no authority to regulate Kalshi's prediction market allowing people to bet on the outcome of sports events. That power rests with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the panel ruled 2-1. -The engineering problems reportedly cropped up during the device's early test production phase and may delay first shipments by months, according to multiple sources briefed on the matter. -According to the lawsuit, the creators behind h3h3 Productions, MrShortGameGolf and Golfholics have accused Apple of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by scraping copyrighted videos on YouTube to train its AI models. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode breaks down how prediction markets are colliding with U.S. law as event‑based trading moves from niche forecasting tools to mainstream platforms handling billions in volume. I explain what prediction markets are, why regulators are increasingly alarmed, and how an escalating federal–state fight (plus new legislative and enforcement pressure) is setting up the next wave of high‑stakes litigation. Key Topics Covered: How prediction markets work: event contracts, probability pricing, and why supporters see them as powerful information‑aggregation tools. Why regulators get uneasy when contracts shift from commodities and macro indicators to human behavior, politics, war, and public‑health crises. The “death markets” debate, including controversial contracts tied to violence and ongoing emergencies—and how backlash can reshape platform policy and regulatory narratives. Federal–state preemption fights: the CFTC/DOJ push for exclusive federal authority under the Commodity Exchange Act versus state gambling‑law enforcement. Congressional efforts to close the perceived “back door” for sports‑ and casino‑style contracts offered through CFTC‑regulated event markets. The arrival of insider‑trading and manipulation enforcement in prediction markets—and why “novel contract” does not mean “regulatory free zone.” Emerging civil‑liability theories: platform negligence, fraud and misrepresentation claims, consumer‑protection suits, and reputational risk as litigation matures. Based on a review of court filings, agency statements, news reports, and scattered commentary, I discuss why prediction markets are becoming a litigation magnet—caught between federal commodities law, state gambling regimes, and growing concerns about market integrity and moral hazard. Tom Hagy Host | Emerging Litigation Podcast Sources relied on for this episode:  CFTC, Press Release, “CFTC Sues Trio of States to Reaffirm its Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets” (Apr. 2, 2026). CFTC, Press Release, “CFTC Enforcement Division Issues Prediction Markets Advisory” (Feb. 25, 2026). Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Prediction Markets and Insider Trading Law” (Mar. 18, 2026). CRS, “Prediction Markets: Policy Issues for Congress” (Mar. 20, 2026). Senator Schiff press release, “Sens. Schiff, Curtis Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Ban Sports Prediction Market Contracts” (Mar. 23, 2026)  17 C.F.R. § 40.11 (eCFR), “Review of event contracts based upon certain excluded commodities” (Apr. 2026). Federal Register, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Event Contracts,” 89 Fed. Reg. 48968 (June 10, 2024). ______________________________________Thanks for listening! If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps. If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more. Tom on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on LinkedInEmerging Litigation Podcast on the HB Litigation site 

Former FTX General Counsel Ryne Miller joins the DEX in the City crew to unpack the CFTC's crypto moves. Does the agency have the staffing to achieve its “aggressive” agenda? Thanks to our sponsor, Nexo, the premier digital wealth platform. Receive interest on your digital assets. Borrow against them without selling. Trade a variety of cryptocurrencies. All in one platform. Now available in the U.S. Get started today at nexo.com/unchained. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission under Chair Mike Selig has unveiled an expansive agenda across artificial intelligence, crypto and prediction markets.  Former CFTC staffer and FTX General Counsel Ryne Miller joins DEX in the City hosts Vy Le and Jessi Brooks to unpack the agenda and answer whether the regulator has the resources to fulfill it. According to Miller, the agenda could see the agency return to a schedule similar to the Dodd-Frank era under then-Chair Gary Gensler.  Beyond the CFTC's regulatory moves, Miller also weighs in on the growing bans on the use of prediction markets by certain officials. Find out why he says it is a trend that is likely to continue. Plus, should Canton be segregated from other blockchains? Hosts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jessi Brooks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, General Counsel at Ribbit Capital ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TuongVy Le, General Counsel at Veda Guest: ⁠Ryne Miller, Partner at Morrison Foerster & Former FTX General Counsel Links: Unchained: CFTC Clears Path for Phantom to Bridge Crypto Wallets and Derivatives CFTC Moves to Rein In Prediction Markets as Industry Booms SEC and CFTC Move Toward Unified Crypto Rules Crypto Startup Bet on Its Own Fundraise on Polymarket, Then Apologized How Prediction Markets Make Espionage So Much Easier — and Risk National Security Visa Approves Its First Blockchain Governance Proposal, Joining Canton Network as Super Validator Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former FTX General Counsel Ryne Miller joins the DEX in the City crew to unpack the CFTC's crypto moves. Does the agency have the staffing to achieve its “aggressive” agenda? Thanks to our sponsor, Nexo, the premier digital wealth platform. Receive interest on your digital assets. Borrow against them without selling. Trade a variety of cryptocurrencies. All in one platform. Now available in the U.S. Get started today at nexo.com/unchained. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission under Chair Mike Selig has unveiled an expansive agenda across artificial intelligence, crypto and prediction markets.  Former CFTC staffer and FTX General Counsel Ryne Miller joins DEX in the City hosts Vy Le and Jessi Brooks to unpack the agenda and answer whether the regulator has the resources to fulfill it. According to Miller, the agenda could see the agency return to a schedule similar to the Dodd-Frank era under then-Chair Gary Gensler.  Beyond the CFTC's regulatory moves, Miller also weighs in on the growing bans on the use of prediction markets by certain officials. Find out why he says it is a trend that is likely to continue. Plus, should Canton be segregated from other blockchains? Hosts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jessi Brooks⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, General Counsel at Ribbit Capital ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TuongVy Le, General Counsel at Veda Guest: ⁠Ryne Miller, Partner at Morrison Foerster & Former FTX General Counsel Links: Unchained: CFTC Clears Path for Phantom to Bridge Crypto Wallets and Derivatives CFTC Moves to Rein In Prediction Markets as Industry Booms SEC and CFTC Move Toward Unified Crypto Rules Crypto Startup Bet on Its Own Fundraise on Polymarket, Then Apologized How Prediction Markets Make Espionage So Much Easier — and Risk National Security Visa Approves Its First Blockchain Governance Proposal, Joining Canton Network as Super Validator Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe's Premium Subscription: www.standardgrain.comGrain Markets and Other Stuff Links —Apple PodcastsSpotifyTikTokYouTubeFutures and options trading involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone.

In today's episode of iGaming Daily, SBC Media Manager Charlie Horner is joined by Tom Nightingale, Senior Business Journalist of SBC Americas, and International Masters of Gaming Law President Marc Dunbar as the trio discuss the explosive rise of prediction markets, the regulatory turmoil unfolding in the United States, and whether the battle over federal versus state rights will ultimately reshape the future of the regulated gambling industry.Tune in to today's episode to find out:How prediction markets are disrupting the existing regulated gambling ecosystem and challenging state-licensed operators.Why the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has dramatically shifted its stance and what that means for the industry.The growing constitutional clash between federal oversight and individual state authority over gambling laws.Why the ultimate decision on prediction markets will likely rest with the Supreme Court of the United States and what that timeline could look like.The potential dangers of a deregulated nationwide betting marketplace and what it could mean for consumer protections.Host: Charlie HornerGuest: Tom Nightingale & Marc DunbarProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldLearn how Optimove's Positionless Marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using Optimove's Positionless Marketing Platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. Learn more at optimove.com.To see how this approach comes to life, Optimove Connect returns to London on March 11 and 12, 2026. It is the only user conference where marketers from around the world share real-world results of Positionless Marketing driving efficiency and ROI. Register at connect.optimove.com.Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.

This Day in Legal History: Reichstag Fire DecreeOn February 27, 1933, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze in Berlin, an event that would alter the course of constitutional government in Germany. The fire broke out just weeks after Adolf Hitler had been appointed Chancellor. Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested at the scene, and Nazi officials quickly blamed a broader communist conspiracy. The next day, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree at Hitler's urging.The decree suspended key civil liberties guaranteed under the Weimar Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and protections against unlawful searches and detention. It also allowed the central government to override state authorities. In practical terms, the measure authorized indefinite detention without trial. Police power expanded dramatically, and political opponents were arrested in large numbers.Although framed as a temporary emergency response, the decree had no meaningful expiration. It became the legal foundation for dismantling democratic institutions in Germany. Courts largely failed to check the expanding authority of the executive branch. The event demonstrates how emergency powers, once normalized, can erode constitutional safeguards from within. The Reichstag Fire and its legal aftermath remain a lasting example of how constitutional systems can collapse through formally lawful measures rather than open revolution.Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to give private testimony to the House Oversight Committee regarding his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. The closed-door session follows testimony from Hillary Clinton, who said she does not recall meeting Epstein and denied having information about his crimes. Bill Clinton previously flew on Epstein's plane multiple times after leaving office, and recently released Justice Department documents include photos of him with unidentified women. He has denied any misconduct and has expressed regret over his past association.Committee Chairman James Comer stated that neither Clinton is accused of wrongdoing but said they must address questions about Epstein's possible connections to their charitable foundation. The Clintons agreed to testify near their home in New York after lawmakers threatened contempt proceedings. Some Democrats supported compelling their testimony, while others criticized the inquiry as politically motivated.Democrats argue that Republicans are using the investigation to shield Donald Trump from scrutiny. They have called for Trump to be subpoenaed, noting that his name appears frequently in Epstein-related records and that he had social ties with Epstein before Epstein's 2008 conviction. Democrats also claim the Justice Department is withholding records involving allegations against Trump. The department has said it is reviewing the materials and has emphasized that released files contain unverified claims. Authorities have not charged Trump with any crimes related to Epstein. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges, and his death was ruled a suicide.Bill Clinton to give private testimony to Congress about Epstein | ReutersA federal judge has allowed construction of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom to continue, at least for now. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied a request from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to temporarily halt the project while its lawsuit moves forward. The group had sought a preliminary injunction to stop work, arguing that the administration failed to comply with federal laws, including obtaining congressional approval and conducting proper environmental review.Leon ruled that the preservationists had not met the legal standard required for such an emergency order. However, he indicated they may revise their complaint to better challenge the president's claimed statutory authority to proceed without Congress. The lawsuit contends that demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning construction violated federal restrictions on altering federal property in Washington, D.C. It also argues that the National Park Service should have completed a more detailed environmental impact statement before work began.The Trump administration maintains that the renovation fits within longstanding presidential authority over White House changes and serves public functions. Trump praised the ruling publicly and said the ballroom would symbolize national strength. The National Trust expressed disappointment but said it plans to amend its legal claims.The East Wing, originally built in 1902 and expanded in 1942, was demolished in October. The ballroom is part of broader renovations Trump has made since returning to office in 2025. Although construction is underway, no firm completion date has been announced.Trump's White House ballroom can move ahead for now, judge rules | ReutersPrediction-market company Kalshi has hired prominent Supreme Court advocate Neal Katyal to represent it in a series of disputes with state regulators. Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, appeared this week in a lawsuit Kalshi filed against Utah officials and is also handling similar cases in several other states. The company argues that its event-based trading contracts fall under the authority of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state gambling regulators.States contend that platforms like Kalshi are effectively operating unlicensed sports-betting businesses. Other prediction-market operators, including Polymarket and Coinbase, are also fighting regulatory battles and have assembled experienced legal teams. The industry has grown rapidly, with tens of billions of dollars in trading volume last year, increasing scrutiny from state authorities.Kalshi bets on Neal Katyal in prediction market cases | ReutersNetflix has withdrawn its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery after WBD's board determined that a competing offer from Paramount Skydance was superior. Netflix's co-CEOs said their proposed merger would have delivered value and likely cleared regulatory review, but matching Paramount's higher price no longer made financial sense. They described the deal as desirable at the right valuation, but not essential at any cost.Paramount's leadership welcomed WBD's decision, saying its proposal offers greater value and a clearer path to closing. To finalize the Paramount deal, a short match period must expire, Netflix's existing merger agreement must be terminated, and a definitive agreement between Paramount and WBD must be signed.Paramount recently raised its offer to $31 per share in cash, along with a quarterly ticking fee if the deal is not completed by a specified date. The proposal also includes a $7 billion regulatory termination fee if the transaction fails because of regulatory issues, as well as reimbursement of the $2.8 billion breakup fee WBD would owe Netflix upon ending their agreement. With Netflix stepping aside, Paramount is now positioned to complete the acquisition.Netflix Drops WBD Bid, Paving Way For Paramount Deal - Law360This week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.This week's closing theme takes us to Chopin and his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, a work that helped launch his international career. Although numbered second, it was actually the first of his two piano concertos to be written, composed in 1829 when he was just twenty. The concerto reflects Chopin's deep roots in the Polish Romantic tradition, while also revealing the poetic lyricism that would define his later solo piano works. Its sweeping first movement balances youthful brilliance with emotional intensity. The second movement, marked Larghetto, is intimate and expressive, often described as a musical love letter. The finale brings rhythmic energy and subtle references to Polish dance forms.The piece gained wider recognition when Chopin performed it during his Paris debut on February 27, 1832. That appearance introduced him to the influential musical circles of Paris and marked a turning point in his career. The concerto showcased not only his technical skill, but also his distinctive touch and refined musical voice. While later critics sometimes focused on the orchestration, the piano writing remains among the most elegant of the Romantic era. The work captures a young composer standing at the threshold of fame, blending vulnerability with confidence. As our closing theme this week, it reflects both artistic ambition and a historic February 27 connection that helped shape Chopin's legacy.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A major fight is brewing over who has the right to regulate prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. In a brief in a Nevada court case, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission argued it should regulate prediction markets, but states say the platforms should follow state gambling laws. Later in the episode, we unpack departure plans for the European Central Bank's president and hear why geopolitics are making Sweden rethink its decision to not adopt the euro.

A major fight is brewing over who has the right to regulate prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. In a brief in a Nevada court case, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission argued it should regulate prediction markets, but states say the platforms should follow state gambling laws. Later in the episode, we unpack departure plans for the European Central Bank's president and hear why geopolitics are making Sweden rethink its decision to not adopt the euro.

What could the future of U.S. crypto regulation look like from the CFTC—and how should regulators approach tokenization, prediction markets, and stablecoins as digital finance moves on-chain?Chris Giancarlo is Senior Counsel for Corporate and Financial Services at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and the former Chair of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, where he oversaw the regulation of futures, options, and swaps markets, including the launch of Bitcoin futures.Timestamps:➡️ 1:15 — Advice for new CFTC Chair Mike Selig➡️ 3:06 — Why crypto inverts the CFTC's traditional regulatory model➡️ 6:53 — How the SEC and CFTC should divide authority over digital assets➡️ 8:54 — Why the commodity vs. security distinction still matters➡️ 15:13 — DTCC's no-action relief and the future of tokenized market infrastructure➡️ 19:27 — Will TradFi absorb crypto—or will crypto reshape TradFi?➡️ 21:46 — Prediction markets, federal preemption, and state resistance➡️ 27:40 — Why prediction markets need regulation, not suppression➡️ 29:42 — Stablecoins, privacy, and exporting U.S. values through digital dollarsSponsor: This episode is brought to you by the Decentralization Research Center (DRC), a nonprofit think tank advocating for decentralization in emerging technologies. Learn more at thedrcenter.org.Resources

Listen to the SF Daily podcast for today, January 26, 2026, with host Lorrie Boyer. These quick and informative episodes cover the commodity markets, weather, and the big things happening in agriculture each morning. A weakening U.S. dollar and rising metals are impacting agricultural markets, with gold up $110 an ounce and silver nearly $8. Dry conditions in Argentina lowered soybean ratings, while winter storms in the U.S. influenced cash markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission reported a net short position of 95,867 corn futures contracts and a net long position of 14,624 soybean futures contracts. Cash cattle traded steady to higher, with box beef prices up. Cold weather warnings were issued across the U.S., with wind chills reaching minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Online gambling continues to grow in popularity, but it's no longer just about wagering money on your favorite teams. Prediction markets like Polymarket allow users to bet on the outcomes of real-world events, from elections to global conflicts. However, their rapid growth is raising new questions in Washington as U.S.-based versions roll out. Lawmakers are warning that government insiders could be using non-public information to profit on these platforms, following high-profile trades tied to major political developments. Chris Giancarlo, former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a member of Polymarket's advisory board, recently joined the Rundown's Jessica Rosenthal to explain how these platforms work and why they tend to be so accurate when predicting world events. During the conversation, Giancarlo addresses concerns over privacy and the ethics of officials profiting from policy secrets. He also weighs in on the anonymous bettor who reportedly won $400,000 predicting the U.S. capture of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro—a windfall that sparked outrage on Capitol Hill. We often have to cut our interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full conversation. On today's Fox News Rundown Extra, we share our entire interview with former CFTC Chairman Chris Giancarlo for a deeper look at the world of Polymarket. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Online gambling continues to grow in popularity, but it's no longer just about wagering money on your favorite teams. Prediction markets like Polymarket allow users to bet on the outcomes of real-world events, from elections to global conflicts. However, their rapid growth is raising new questions in Washington as U.S.-based versions roll out. Lawmakers are warning that government insiders could be using non-public information to profit on these platforms, following high-profile trades tied to major political developments. Chris Giancarlo, former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a member of Polymarket's advisory board, recently joined the Rundown's Jessica Rosenthal to explain how these platforms work and why they tend to be so accurate when predicting world events. During the conversation, Giancarlo addresses concerns over privacy and the ethics of officials profiting from policy secrets. He also weighs in on the anonymous bettor who reportedly won $400,000 predicting the U.S. capture of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro—a windfall that sparked outrage on Capitol Hill. We often have to cut our interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full conversation. On today's Fox News Rundown Extra, we share our entire interview with former CFTC Chairman Chris Giancarlo for a deeper look at the world of Polymarket. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Online gambling continues to grow in popularity, but it's no longer just about wagering money on your favorite teams. Prediction markets like Polymarket allow users to bet on the outcomes of real-world events, from elections to global conflicts. However, their rapid growth is raising new questions in Washington as U.S.-based versions roll out. Lawmakers are warning that government insiders could be using non-public information to profit on these platforms, following high-profile trades tied to major political developments. Chris Giancarlo, former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a member of Polymarket's advisory board, recently joined the Rundown's Jessica Rosenthal to explain how these platforms work and why they tend to be so accurate when predicting world events. During the conversation, Giancarlo addresses concerns over privacy and the ethics of officials profiting from policy secrets. He also weighs in on the anonymous bettor who reportedly won $400,000 predicting the U.S. capture of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro—a windfall that sparked outrage on Capitol Hill. We often have to cut our interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full conversation. On today's Fox News Rundown Extra, we share our entire interview with former CFTC Chairman Chris Giancarlo for a deeper look at the world of Polymarket. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump is proposing a one-year cap on credit card interest rates at 10% alongside the Credit Card Competition Act, a bipartisan push aimed at increasing competition in the credit card processing industry–moves supporters say could ease cost-of-living pressures for Americans. Sen. Roger Marshall joins to discuss the potential impacts and criticisms of the proposals, his push for greater competition across industries, and the bipartisan cooperation behind the credit card bill. Prediction markets like Polymarket allow users to place bets on the outcomes of real-world events like sports, elections or global conflicts. But their rapid growth is raising new questions in Washington as a U.S. version rolls out. Lawmakers are warning that government insiders could be using non-public information to profit on these platforms, following high-profile trades tied to major political and international developments. Chris Giancarlo, the former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joins the Rundown to talk about what exactly Polymarket is and whether it needs tighter rules to prevent insider trading. Plus, commentary by former Vice President Mike Pence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump is proposing a one-year cap on credit card interest rates at 10% alongside the Credit Card Competition Act, a bipartisan push aimed at increasing competition in the credit card processing industry–moves supporters say could ease cost-of-living pressures for Americans. Sen. Roger Marshall joins to discuss the potential impacts and criticisms of the proposals, his push for greater competition across industries, and the bipartisan cooperation behind the credit card bill. Prediction markets like Polymarket allow users to place bets on the outcomes of real-world events like sports, elections or global conflicts. But their rapid growth is raising new questions in Washington as a U.S. version rolls out. Lawmakers are warning that government insiders could be using non-public information to profit on these platforms, following high-profile trades tied to major political and international developments. Chris Giancarlo, the former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joins the Rundown to talk about what exactly Polymarket is and whether it needs tighter rules to prevent insider trading. Plus, commentary by former Vice President Mike Pence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We're taking a look at prediction markets - what they are, how they work, and the regulatory questions surrounding platforms like Polymarket, Kalshi, and Robinhood. Andrew Busch, former Chief Markets Intelligence Officer at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and economic futurist at AndrewBusch.com in Charlotte, North Carolina, joins Rob Hart on the WBBM Noon Business Hour with the details.

President Trump is proposing a one-year cap on credit card interest rates at 10% alongside the Credit Card Competition Act, a bipartisan push aimed at increasing competition in the credit card processing industry–moves supporters say could ease cost-of-living pressures for Americans. Sen. Roger Marshall joins to discuss the potential impacts and criticisms of the proposals, his push for greater competition across industries, and the bipartisan cooperation behind the credit card bill. Prediction markets like Polymarket allow users to place bets on the outcomes of real-world events like sports, elections or global conflicts. But their rapid growth is raising new questions in Washington as a U.S. version rolls out. Lawmakers are warning that government insiders could be using non-public information to profit on these platforms, following high-profile trades tied to major political and international developments. Chris Giancarlo, the former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, joins the Rundown to talk about what exactly Polymarket is and whether it needs tighter rules to prevent insider trading. Plus, commentary by former Vice President Mike Pence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Senate Agriculture Committee, which has oversight over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, will hold that markup hearing on Jan. 15, a committee spokesperson said.Guest: Tim Warren, Host of Investing BrozInvesting Broz Youtube ➜ ‪‪  @TimWarrenTrades  Follow on Twitter ➜  @timsta6753   00:00 Intro00:10 Sponsor: BTCC01:00 Opportunity time?04:15 Mike Wilson: Difference between the end 2025 and today08:15 Senate nears deal?08:30 Congress trading in 202509:15 Paul CLARITY Bill theory11:30 Tariff Volatility incoming?13:00 ETH analysis16:00 ETH price end of January16:50 Solana analysis18:30 Tim Top token for 202620:30 Charles bids farewell22:30 Will this hurt ADA?24:30 Zcrash25:30 AVAX analysis29:30 DATs Dead?33:30 Outro#Crypto #Bitcoin #ethereum~Crypto Rally Countdown

We close out our Re-engineering Tokenization series this week with Walt Lukken, President & CEO of the FIA and Former Acting Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. David Greely sits down with Walt to discuss the state of the conversation on tokenization in the cleared derivatives industry – and what the next steps are towards bringing tokenized assets into the mainstream.

The 10 Second Takeaway: DraftKings and other online sports betting platforms are losing market share to predictive markets. DraftKings (Nasdaq: DKNG) and FanDuel (owned by Flutter Entertainment (NYSE: FLUT)) have enjoyed more than 80% share for years in America's online sports betting market duopoly.But now they're adjusting to a new player who's recently joined their table.Privately-held Kalshi has a reserved seat to allow gamblers to bet on sporting events. Yet this isn't the same as its larger peers, and its new approach is taking the industry by storm.Kalshi isn't just another online sports book. It is technically an exchange who sells financial products that are tied to the outcomes of sporting events.That legal distinction is important, because Kalshi and other predictive market platforms are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission at the federal level. That's quite different from online sports betting platforms, who are regulated by each individual state.DraftKings and FanDuel have been lobbying endlessly on a state-by-state basis, trying not only to get their apps legalized but also for them to have consistent tax rates. Even after decades of operations, online sports betting is still only legal in 38 states + the District of Columbia.Yet Kalshi's financial products are available in all 50 states and have quickly sidestepped the traditional book of rules.As expected, the money is flowing to what's more universally available. The NY Times reported that Kalshi facilitated more than $2.5 billion worth of sports contracts in September alone, with the majority being on NFL games.That's a pretty formidable number, especially when considering the total cash handle for all sports betting last year was around $150 billion.There are political ties here as well. Kalshi named Donald Trump Jr as a strategic advisor one week before the president's inauguration, and the Trump Administration further issued tax cuts that are financially advantageous for future contracts as compared to traditional gambling.I don't personally see much of a difference between prediction market financial contracts and online sports bets. They're pretty much identical in function and are placed in exactly the same way within the apps by users.Yet in this highly-regulated industry, Kalshi and its predictven market peers appear to have been given a Trump Card. And that's providing an important edge that is causing it to win big at the expense of others.DraftKings will report its third quarter earnings in early November. I'll grab a front row seat and some popcorn, eager to see how this game will ultimately play out. See all of our coverage on DraftKings at 7investing.com/DKNG

Congress is moving toward passing a series of bills that would be the first to regulate the crypto industry. The GENIUS Act regulates stablecoins while the Clarity Act regulates digital currency overall, splitting oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Lisa Desjardins discussed the legislation with Patrick McHenry and Hilary Allen. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Congress is moving toward passing a series of bills that would be the first to regulate the crypto industry. The GENIUS Act regulates stablecoins while the Clarity Act regulates digital currency overall, splitting oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Lisa Desjardins discussed the legislation with Patrick McHenry and Hilary Allen. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Listen to the SF Daily podcast for today, May 28, 2025, with host Lorrie Boyer. These quick and informative episodes cover the commodity markets, weather, and the big things happening in agriculture each morning. Crop progress report recap. There are more corn and soybeans yet to be planted due to wet weather in the Eastern Corn Belt. Ohio is behind pace with replanting in some areas expected. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing to expand futures trading hours to a 24/7 schedule, but there is a fair amount of pushback on this idea. Weekly soybean, corn export inspections decline. No major trade developments today. Feeder Cattle futures were over $7 lower on the open yesterday as a rumor surfaced that screwworm had been detected in cattle in the U.S. That rumor was later rebuked and futures recovered all but $2.22 cents. Severe storms are possible in the southern Plains throughout the afternoon with large hail wind, including gusts up to 60 mph. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Ag Net News Hour hosts, Lorrie Boyer and Nick Papagni, “The Ag Meter,” discuss the U.S. House of Representatives' passage of President Trump's budget reconciliation bill, which includes Farm Bill improvements and cuts to social programs. The bill, dubbed "The One Big Beautiful Bill," cuts taxes by $3.78 billion over 10 years and reduces spending by $1.2 trillion, particularly on Medicaid and nutrition programs. Key provisions include no taxes on tips and overtime, increased spending on conservation by $3.2 billion, and premium subsidies for crop insurance. The bill aims to support small businesses and farmers, with potential changes in the Senate.   Nick and Lorrie then talk about the impact of tariffs on California table grapes, with 30% of exports potentially affected. Ian LeMay, CEO of the California Table Grape Commission, expressed optimism despite tariffs in Pacific Rim countries. The conversation also covers the upcoming 21% tariff on Mexican tomatoes, expected to benefit California and Florida growers by leveling the playing field against cheaper Mexican imports. The discussion highlights the broader implications of tariffs on agricultural trade, including the high costs of farming in California due to labor, fuel, and water expenses. Nick also mentions an upcoming interview with Steve Hilton, a gubernatorial candidate, to discuss farming issues.   In the final segment.  Nick notes the ideal weather in California and predicting hotter months ahead. The conversation shifts to the impact of heat on crops, livestock, and human life. The hosts also debate personal preferences for hot versus cold weather. A proposed change by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to expand trading hours to 24/7 is discussed, with concerns raised about market liquidity, staffing, and compliance. The segment concludes with farm facts: California produces 193 million dozen eggs annually, valued at $621 million, and 2.9 billion pounds of strawberries, worth $3.5 billion.

Listen to the SF Daily podcast for today, May 19, 2025, with host Lorrie Boyer. These quick and informative episodes cover the commodity markets, weather, and the big things happening in agriculture each morning. Weather issues in China, the EU, and Brazil were noted. The US debt downgrade and low consumer confidence affected markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission reported a net short position of 64,272 futures contracts in corn and a net long position of 55,667 in soybeans. Cattle futures were mixed, with cash trading at $1 lower to $1 higher. Storms in Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky caused significant damage Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With cryptocurrency's increasing popularity, it's crucial to be aware of the prevalence of crypto scams. Cryptocurrency is a digital currency that uses cryptography to secure transactions. However, the rise of crypto has also led to a surge in scams. It's important to stay alert to spot these scams and avoid falling victim to them.    Links: Report any crypto scams you encounter to any or all of the agencies below: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ https://www.cftc.gov/complaint https://www.sec.gov/submit-tip-or-complaint/tips-complaints-resources/report-suspected-securities-fraud-or-wrongdoing https://www.ic3.gov/Home/Index Check out TCU University for financial education tips and resources! Follow us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter! Learn more about Triangle Credit Union  Transcript: Welcome to Money Tip Tuesday from the Making Money Personal podcast.      One important thing to note about cryptocurrency is the U.S. government does not back it. If your crypto account gets hacked or the company that provides storage for your wallet goes out of business, your money is gone. The government has no obligation to step in and help you get your money back. In comparison, U.S. dollars deposited into an FDIC or NCUA-insured account are safe. Those coverages insure deposits up to $250,000 in the event of a financial institution failure.    That said, it's important not to fall for a cryptocurrency scam. Here are some common scams and their warning signs. First, suppose someone you're considering doing business with only accepts cryptocurrency payments. That should be a red flag, especially if the company demands that you send the payment before receiving any product or service.    A common crypto scam is an investment scam. If someone asks you to invest in a new crypto coin that guarantees quick and significant returns, it's most likely a scam. Crypto investment scams can come in many forms. A scammer might pose as an investment manager promising to make you rich if you buy cryptocurrency and transfer it to their account. They might even create a fake website to trick you further. It's also known that scammers have tried to impersonate celebrities, offering to multiply any cryptocurrency you send them. Scammers will also go on dating apps to find their targets. They might seem interested in you, but it's a red flag if they start talking about crypto and try to get you to invest with them.    Rug pull scams are also very common with cryptocurrency. Rug pull scams are when investment scammers pump up a new NFT or coin to raise funds. Once they get the money that people invested, they disappear. The way these "investments" are coded prevents people from being able to sell or trade them, making them effectively worthless.   Another crypto scam is when fraudsters impersonate a business or the government. They might say they're from Amazon, EZ-Pass, or even your financial institution and claim that there's fraud on your account or your money is at risk. They'll say that to fix the issue, you have to send them crypto. Don't click links or respond to their messages; it is a scam.   One last crypto scam is blackmail. Scammers might contact you saying that they have compromising photos, videos, audio, or information about you. If you don't send them crypto, they'll send it all to your friends, family, place of work, and school. Don't do it and report it to the FBI immediately.    If you encounter a crypto scam, there are a few things you should and shouldn't do. First of all, don't engage with the scammer. Many of these scams are mass messages that the scammer sends out and are not explicitly targeted at you. Responding to the scammer lets them know you exist and can be targeted for their scam. What you should do is ignore the message. You can also report the fraud to multiple places, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internet Crime Complaint Center, and the cryptocurrency exchange company you encountered the scam on. Links to all of these resources will be available in the show notes.  If there are any other tips or topics you'd like us to cover, let us know at tcupodcast@trianglecu.org. Also, remember to like and follow our Making Money Personal Facebook and Instagram to share your thoughts. Finally, remember to look for our sponsor, Triangle Credit Union, on Facebook and LinkedIn.         Thanks for listening to today's Money Tip Tuesday. Check out our other tips and episodes on the Making Money Personal podcast. 

Timothy Massad is currently a Senior Fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown Law School and a consultant on financial regulatory and fintech issues. Massad served as Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 2014-2017. Under his leadership, the agency implemented the Dodd Frank reforms of the over-the-counter swaps market and harmonized many aspects of cross-border regulation, including reaching a landmark agreement with the European Union on clearinghouse oversight. The agency also declared virtual currencies to be commodities, introduced reforms to address automated trading and strengthened cybersecurity protections. Previously, Mr. Massad served as the Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. In that capacity, he oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the principal U.S. governmental response to the 2008 financial crisis. Massad was a partner in the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP. His practice included corporate finance, derivatives and advising boards of directors. Massad was also one of a small group of lawyers who drafted the original ISDA standard agreements for swaps.Howell Jackson is the James S. Reid, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. His research interests include financial regulation, consumer financial protection, securities regulation, and federal budget policy. He has served as a consultant to the United States Treasury Department, the United Nations Development Program, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. He frequently consults with government agencies and congressional committees on issues related to financial regulation. From 2023 to 2024, he was a Senior Adviser to the National Economic Council.   Since 2005, Professor Jackson has been a trustee of College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF).  He has also served as a director of Commonwealth, a non-profit dedicated to strengthening financial opportunities for low and moderate-income consumers. At Harvard University, Professor Jackson has served as Senior Adviser to the President and Acting Dean of Harvard Law School. Before joining the Harvard Law School faculty in 1989, Professor Jackson was a law clerk for Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall and practiced law in Washington, D.C. Professor Jackson received his J.D. and M.B.A. degrees from Harvard University in 1982 and a B.A. from Brown University in 1976.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina.Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill .  

Venture capitalists have been welcomed into the Donald Trump administration, and their presence is growing. People who've been in the business of backing startups have been tapped to run the Office of Personnel Management and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Another, David Sacks, is the White House artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency czar. Even the vice president, JD Vance, spent time making venture deals before he moved into politics. Sarah Kunst, founder and managing director at Cleo Capital, says that in venture capital, you have to be good at saying no and comfortable taking risks knowing they likely won’t pan out. Marketplace’s Stephanie Hughes asked Kunst what it means to bring these qualities to the federal government.

Venture capitalists have been welcomed into the Donald Trump administration, and their presence is growing. People who've been in the business of backing startups have been tapped to run the Office of Personnel Management and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Another, David Sacks, is the White House artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency czar. Even the vice president, JD Vance, spent time making venture deals before he moved into politics. Sarah Kunst, founder and managing director at Cleo Capital, says that in venture capital, you have to be good at saying no and comfortable taking risks knowing they likely won’t pan out. Marketplace’s Stephanie Hughes asked Kunst what it means to bring these qualities to the federal government.

The zealously anti-regulatory Trump is back and anti-corruption activist Frank Vogl is very worried. Vogl warns that MAGA's increasingly deregulated America financial landscape could make the 2008 crash look like a minor bump in the economic road. With Trump putting the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on "pause" and DOGE kingpin Elon Musk openly dreaming of turning X into a bank, we're watching traditional financial regulation shrivel to the minimal levels of Calvin Coolidge's 1920's. Meanwhile, Melania is launching crypto tokens, Putin's kleptocracy has been legitimized by the Ukraine “peace” negotiations, and the increasingly unaccountable banks are begging to gamble with our money again. What could possibly go wrong? Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from this conversation with Frank Vogl:* Financial Deregulation Concerns - Frank Vogl warns that Trump's administration is actively dismantling financial regulations, including pausing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He fears this deregulation could lead to a financial crisis potentially worse than 2008.* Three-Pronged Financial Risk - Vogl identifies three interconnected areas of concern:* Traditional banks seeking reduced capital requirements and fewer restrictions* Unregulated expansion of Silicon Valley firms (like X/Twitter) into banking* The growing crypto market and its potential for money laundering and speculation* Regulatory Enforcement Weakening - The Trump administration is systematically weakening regulatory agencies by appointing anti-regulation leaders and reducing staff (e.g., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation lost 500 staff). This reduction in oversight capacity could enable financial abuse and fraud.* International Corruption Implications - The suspension of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and potential lifting of Russian sanctions could create a vacuum in global anti-corruption enforcement, as no other country (including the UK or Switzerland) is positioned to take over America's leadership role in fighting international financial crime.* Big Tech and Government Contracts - There's growing concern about the relationship between the Trump administration and tech leaders, not just for potential government contracts but also for their control of media platforms. Vogl argues this could be problematic for democracy if proper procurement and transparency processes aren't followed.FULL TRANSCRIPT: Frank Vogl Warns of a New Financial Crisis Under Trump 2.0Interview with Frank Vogl February 16, 2025Two months into Donald Trump's second presidency, financial corruption expert Frank Vogl returns to Keen On to discuss the dismantling of America's financial regulatory system and its potential consequences. Vogl, co-founder of Transparency International and author of "The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption, Endangering Our Democracy," warns of parallels to both the 1920s and 2008 financial crisis, but with new digital-age complications.Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is Sunday, February 16th, 2025. A couple of years ago, we did a show with my old friend Frank Vogl on the global fight against corruption. He is the author of "The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption, Endangering Our Democracy" and co-founder of Transparency International, a nonprofit focused on exposing financial corruption. Last year, we had Frank back to discuss whether Donald Trump 2.0 would be what we called a semi-legal repeat of the Sam Bankman-Fried FTX debacle. Now, almost two months into the Trump regime, I'd like to revisit this question. Frank, you have an interesting new piece out in The Globalist about Trump-style U.S. financial deregulation and its global ramifications. Is it as bad as we feared?Frank Vogl: Yes, it's good to be with you, Andrew. We are in danger of developments that could lead to a financial crisis in a few years' time, potentially worse than the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis led to massive unemployment and economic hardship, not just in the U.S. but across the world. It was caused by wild speculation, greed, and mismanagement by fewer than two dozen financial institutions, many of which were bailed out. Now, thanks to what Trump and Elon Musk are doing, we're setting the stage for a new era of financial deregulation with all the risks that involves.Andrew Keen: It's chilling. Frank, I wonder about the historical parallels. Some people have made much of Trump's interest in McKinley's presidency, colonialism, and Latin America. But I wonder whether we're really returning to the 1920s and the unconstrained speculative capitalism of the Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover era. Are there historical analogies here? The teapot scandal and unregulated capitalism of the '20s resulted in the great crash.Frank Vogl: Yes, that's true. But we should remember it led to a new era of regulation - the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies focused on ensuring financial institutions didn't have excessive power. What we're facing now is not only the prospect of excessive power by financial institutions but a much more complicated array of financial institutions. Take Elon Musk, who unquestionably wants to enter the financial arena by operating his own quasi-bank.Andrew Keen: He's always been clear about that - he's said X will ultimately be a bank among other things.Frank Vogl: What we're seeing now is not only the possibility of bank deregulation, but also the emergence of a whole new unregulated system of finance from Silicon Valley. Add to that the complete mayhem of gambling, greed, corruption, and money laundering associated with crypto tokens. Put all of that together and you have a dangerous situation that could affect the global economy.Andrew Keen: Some might say you're overreacting. A Silicon Valley entrepreneur friend who was on the show yesterday argued that the Biden administration, particularly figures like Lina Khan, was stifling innovation. They'd say Trump's people are just letting innovators innovate, with Musk as a prime example. How would you respond to that?Frank Vogl: I disagree when it comes to finance. Let me explain. Our government essentially has two components: the administrative state, where government departments monitor and implement programs and projects, and the regulatory state, where agencies protect American citizens in health, consumer safety, and finance. First and foremost, we need a safe and sound financial system. Everyone benefits from that. We have a healthy financial system right now - just look at the stock market. It could be improved, but let's not demolish it. The profits of the biggest banks in 2024 were at record levels. Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase, took home a record $39 million in compensation. The head of Goldman Sachs got an $80 million bonus.Andrew Keen: Which in Silicon Valley terms isn't that much money, certainly compared to the Musks and others of this world.Frank Vogl: My point is that banks are the bedrock of our financial system. The people at the top are being compensated better than ever before. So what are they campaigning for? What are they supporting Trump on? They're arguing for the kind of deregulation that Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Board president, warned would be dangerous.Andrew Keen: My understanding of the 2008 crash was that banks took advantage of vulnerable consumers and lent them money they shouldn't have borrowed, creating the subprime mortgage crisis that crashed the economy. What do bankers want to do in 2025 that, in your view, they shouldn't be allowed to do?Frank Vogl: You're right about what happened, but also many financial institutions borrowed enormous sums. They leveraged their basic resources to speculate on complicated derivative financial instruments. They were essentially gambling. As Chuck Prince, who ran Citigroup, said, "We have to keep dancing as long as the music is playing."Andrew Keen: Capitalism is about dancing, Frank. It's about taking risk, isn't it?Frank Vogl: To some degree, but when you have an institution like JPMorgan Chase with over $4 trillion in assets, you have to think hard about its mission. That mission fundamentally is to serve customers, not just the top executives. Let them get rich at the top, but let them be prudent and maintain integrity. Trump and Musk have no time for that. Let me give you one example: Trump recently announced we're no longer going to investigate international and corporate corruption. He put the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on pause.Andrew Keen: Yes, that was February 10th. Quoting from whitehouse.gov: "Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement to further American economic and national security," whatever that means.Frank Vogl: The act was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. The largest single fines ever paid for foreign bribery were by Goldman Sachs - nearly $4 billion globally, with $1.6 billion to the U.S. alone. Now we're ending investigations of exactly the kind of activity that made Goldman Sachs very profitable. We're ending all manner of fraud investigation in finance. Take another example: last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was essentially shuttered. A judge ruled it should continue, but Trump's appointees ensure it has minimal resources to investigate. The CFPB investigates banks that commit fraud against regular customers. Remember what Wells Fargo did? The CFPB caught them, and they paid major fines.Andrew Keen: How does all this add up to a financial crisis? The CFPB situation is troubling, but why should this cause the whole system to collapse?Frank Vogl: Let's look at this in three components: banks, digital finance, and crypto. Starting with banks - they're lobbying hard for reduced capital requirements, meaning less money in reserve for crises. They want fewer regulations on how they use their money so they can speculate on their own account. Why? Because banks' short-term profits determine the bankers' compensation. Their bonuses are tied to those profits.Andrew Keen: So if banks are allowed to gamble aggressively, that's great if they win, but if they lose, we all lose. Is that the argument? Then we have to bail them out again?Frank Vogl: That's part of it. The other concern is that as some banks lose, they may get merged into other banks until you have just a handful of enormous banks that can never fail. If they were to fail, our economy would fail. The moral hazard is that banks know when they take huge risks, they'll be bailed out. Now add to this all these quasi-banking systems from Silicon Valley - PayPal, Venmo, Apple Pay. And X recently announced a deal with Visa on payment systems, just the first step to creating X Financial.Andrew Keen: You're sounding a bit reactionary, maybe alarmist. What's wrong with PayPal? It's simply a digital system for people to buy stuff.Frank Vogl: You're right, it's fine the way it is today. But what if these entities are allowed to take deposits and make loans, doing everything banks do, all online? Who's regulating that? Where's the safety?Andrew Keen: But where's the evidence that the Trump administration will allow PayPal or X or Apple Pay to become banks without traditional regulations? From a traditional banking perspective, I'd assume Jamie Dimon and his peers would fight this because it undermines them.Frank Vogl: We're seeing an administration tearing the system apart. Look at each regulatory agency - Trump has put people in charge with long histories of opposing regulation. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation just lost 500 staff through "voluntary resignations." When you reduce regulatory enforcement and investigation, you open the door to abuse. History shows that when there's opportunity for abuse, abuse happens. I hope your optimism about Silicon Valley's ability to manage complicated finance is justified, but I'm skeptical.Andrew Keen: So you're saying Apple or X or PayPal shouldn't be able to be banks, even with traditional banking regulations?Frank Vogl: No, that would be fine. But who's going to regulate it? Do you see Trump proposing to Congress that a brand new regulatory agency be established for this kind of finance? That's not how the Trump team thinks. Just look at crypto.Andrew Keen: Yes, let's look at crypto. Melania Trump launched her own cryptocurrency - it's an enormous speculative bubble, like the tulip speculation. Last week, both Donald and Melania Trump's crypto tokens plummeted. Someone's profiting, someone's losing. How important is this to the broader economy? Is it just another sideshow, another way for the Trump family to get rich while we lose?Frank Vogl: It's contained at the moment. The whole crypto token business is perhaps $3-4 trillion in size - very small in terms of global finance. But I worry about an administration with strong conflicts of interest developing this kind of rapid gambling speculation. Most people invested in crypto are young, between 18 and 35. Many don't have experience with past financial crises.Andrew Keen: And there's a clear difference between using PayPal to buy something online and investing in crypto. One is entirely speculative, one is just a financial transaction.Frank Vogl: Do you really think Elon Musk's X Financial will be satisfied just being a rival to PayPal's payment system? Or does he have bigger ambitions to turn X Financial into something much more like a bank?Andrew Keen: I think he does, but...Frank Vogl: And then comes the question: who is going to regulate this?Andrew Keen: Musk himself? That's a joke. Although at the moment, there's no concrete evidence. X is still struggling for survival as just a social media platform.Frank Vogl: Look, I may sound pessimistic, but I'm only talking about the potential. There's very little public attention on what's happening with financial deregulation, as I wrote in The Globalist. The impact could be substantial. When you have this complete dismantling of the FCPA, other fraud investigations, the removal of inspectors general - the whole dismantling of the government's apparatus for accountability and transparency - then you have to worry about mounting financial risk in our system.Andrew Keen: Let's return to crypto. When does crypto become dangerous? If it becomes a rival to the dollar? At what point do we start worrying that a crypto crisis could become a broader financial crisis?Frank Vogl: I don't worry about that actually. I worry about the conflicts of interest - Trump and his children and cronies all making money from deregulating crypto. I think crypto will remain a sideshow for a long time. But I'm considerably worried about money laundering. With a Justice Department that's stopped investigating financial crimes, and a cryptocurrency system free of regulation - something Trump has promised - organized crime and kleptocrats worldwide will be able to hide their ill-gotten gains and transfer them between countries. That's worrying in itself, even if it doesn't cause a global financial meltdown.Andrew Keen: I wonder if there's another dimension to Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin in Saudi Arabia to discuss Ukraine. There's what one author called "KGB-style capitalism" - the mass laundering of illegal wealth. How much does Trump's eagerness to bring Putin back into the international system have financial ramifications?Frank Vogl: Putin and the oligarchs, Lukashenko in Belarus and his cronies, the former oligarchs of Ukraine who made their money with Russia - all these people have been sanctioned since the war started in February 2022. We're approaching the third anniversary. Putin really wants those sanctions lifted to restore global money laundering and financial crime opportunities. This might be leverage in a deal.Andrew Keen: Can Trump get away with that politically in D.C.? If he pulls the sanctions card to establish what he'd call a Ukrainian peace - really a peace imposed by America on Ukraine - will mainstream Republicans accept that?Frank Vogl: They seem to accept everything today. Trump seems to get away with an awful lot. But I'd like to return to something earlier - there needs to be more public attention on the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. To use a new word in the vocabulary, it has been "Musked." The CFPB, like USA Today, has been Musked. Musk and Trump have weaponized their authority to dismantle these institutions. We'll see it at the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. When you weaponize authority, you monetize power. This is where the conflict of interest comes in. Unfortunately, Congress isn't alert to these developments.Andrew Keen: In a broader international sense, I've always understood that American law is more aggressive than the UK's. Oliver Pollock, who's been on the show, wrote "Butler to the World" about the corrupt British system that invites dirty money from overseas, particularly Russia. Given that Trump is demanding half of Ukraine's mineral resources, could this Trump revolution undermine America's role in standing up to dirty money, both domestically and overseas?Frank Vogl: It might undermine it, but there's no authority anywhere to replace it. The U.S. Justice Department did a fantastic job investigating cryptocurrencies, crypto finance, and bribery of foreign government officials - not just by U.S. companies but by many companies worldwide with U.S. listings, like Airbus Industries. There's no authority in Europe willing to take on that task. So we leave a vacuum. And who fills the vacuum? Kleptocrats, organized crime, and corrupt businesses. A Nigerian paper recently headlined that Nigerian politicians are now open to American bribes. We're being seen as permitting corruption - a terrible reputation. The Swiss or British won't suddenly become super-active in filling the roles the U.S. Justice Department has played.Andrew Keen: As The Guardian headlined today, "Elon Musk's mass government cuts could make private companies millions." We all know the famous photo from the inauguration with Zuckerberg, Bezos, Google's CEO, and Musk. Some might say, what's wrong with that? These companies are the engine of the American economy. Why shouldn't the Trump administration focus on making big American companies more profitable? Won't that make Americans wealthier too?Frank Vogl: There are two answers. First, I agree - if standard public procurement, accountability, and transparency procedures are in place, then companies winning competitive bidding should win. If these happen to be the companies you mentioned, good for them. But if contracts are given without proper bidding processes and transparency, the public loses. Second, Trump didn't embrace these people primarily for their business power - they control media. Autocrats worldwide, from Orbán to Netanyahu, ensure they have media-controlling business tycoons on their side. Trump is incredibly sensitive to publicity and has attracted these powerful media tycoons. I worry about how this media power will be used to undermine democracy and freedom of speech.Andrew Keen: What's the headline for today? Last time, we discussed whether Trump 2.0 would be a semi-legal repeat of the Sam Bankman-Fried debacle. What's the worst that can happen in this new regime?Frank Vogl: Actions are being taken, sometimes inadvertently, that undermine the safety and soundness of our financial system. If that happens, everyone - not just here at home but internationally - will suffer.Andrew Keen: So we'll get 2008 again, or 1930?Frank Vogl: I hope we get neither. But we must be acutely aware of the risks and call out all deregulatory measures if we believe they risk our system, especially when prompted by corruption and greed rather than public interest.Andrew Keen: Well, Frank Vogl, I hope you're wrong, but I suspect you may be right. This won't be the last time you appear on the show. There will be many twists and turns in the financial history of the Trump regime. Thank you so much, Frank. Keep watching in D.C. - we need eyes and ears like yours to make sense of what's happening.Frank Vogl: Andrew, it was once again a great pleasure. Thank you.Frank Vogl is the co-founder of two leading international non-governmental organizations fighting corruption -- Transparency International and the Partnership for Transparency Fund (Frank is the Chair of the PTF Board). He teaches at Georgetown University, writes regular "blog" articles on corruption for theGlobalist.com and lectures extensively. Frank is also a specialist in international economics and finance with more than 50 years of experience in these fields - first as an international journalist, then as the Director of Information & Public Affairs at the World Bank official and, from 1990 to 2017, as the president and CEO of a consulting firm, Vogl Communications Inc.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this riveting episode, we dive deep into the world of fiscal and monetary systems, post the global financial crisis of 2008. We are joined by Jordan MacLeod, an intellectual powerhouse who has been at the forefront of revolutionizing the global monetary system. We discuss the trends identified in 2009, the impact of 2008 on the urgency to rethink monetary frameworks, and the potential for a global rebalancing in economic and monetary frameworks.Topics Discussed• The journey of Jordan MacLeod's intellectual background and his work on identifying global trends and the future• The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the urgency to rethink monetary frameworks• The potential for a global rebalancing in economic and monetary frameworks• The concept of a zero interest economy and its implications• The role of AI, robotics, and automation in changing the nature of labor markets• The possibility of moving from a financialized economy to a real economy• The mechanism to migrate from a speculative economy to a real economy• The potential of a new monetary system and the signs to look for that decision makers are moving in this directionThis episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of the global monetary system, the potential for a shift towards a real economy, and the implications of AI and automation on labor markets. Join us as we navigate through these intricate topics, providing valuable insights and strategies to understand the uncertain financial landscape.*ReSolve Global refers to ReSolve Asset Management SEZC (Cayman) which is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a commodity trading advisor and commodity pool operator. This registration is administered through the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Further, ReSolve Global is a registered person with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority.

In this episode, the ReSolve team is joined by Dr. Robert Frank, the Henrietta Johnson Lewis Professor of Management Emeritus and Professor of Economics at the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. They delve into the role of luck in success, the myth of meritocracy, and the dynamics of free markets. They explore various topics, including:Topics Discussed• The approach to both microeconomics and macroeconomics in the textbooks co-authored with Dr. Ben Bernanke• The impact of behavioral economics on the understanding of microeconomics and macroeconomics• The role of luck and meritocracy in success and how policy is informed by this understanding• The concept of 'smart for one, dumb for all' in the context of competition• The implications of the Darwin Economy and the interplay between individual self-interest and societal outcomes• The effects of tax structures on entrepreneurial initiative and economic growth• The need for effective human coordination to solve major problems and improve the futureThis episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in understanding the complex dynamics of economics, the role of luck in success, and the impact of policy decisions on societal outcomes. It provides valuable insights into the intricacies of economic theories and their practical implications.*ReSolve Global refers to ReSolve Asset Management SEZC (Cayman) which is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a commodity trading advisor and commodity pool operator. This registration is administered through the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Further, ReSolve Global is a registered person with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority.

Learn how prediction markets work, the legal gray areas in which they operate, and how they could be regulated in the future. What are prediction markets like PredictIt, Polymarket and Kalshi, and how do they work? Is it legal to bet on elections in the United States? Hosts Tess Vigeland and Anna Helhoski welcome Sam Taube, the writer of the Nerdy Investor email newsletter, to break down how event contracts operate, explore the legal gray areas of election betting, and discuss whether prediction markets are a smart financial move—or just gambling in disguise. Then, Tess and Anna break down this week's money headlines, including the latest inflation figures and what they mean for interest rates, the CFPB's plan to enforce new click-to-cancel subscription rules, and Spirit Airlines' Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. In this episode, the Nerds discuss: how prediction markets work, betting on elections, event contracts explained, investing vs gambling, election betting legality, gambling vs investing, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, event contracts legality, prediction market regulation, prediction markets news, event contracts explained simply, and Consumer Price Index. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend.

Today we're talking about a breakout story of this election cycle: the rise of prediction markets and betting on elections. For the first time in a century, Americans can legally place bets on election outcomes using a platform called Kalshi. But the Commodity Futures Trading Commission warns that these markets could warp the public’s understanding of our elections if they’re treated like polls. On this Election Day episode, Cantrell Dumas of Better Markets, a financial reform advocacy group, explains how Americans are dabbling in election betting, the legal questions surrounding these prediction markets, and why he believes manipulation of these markets has the potential to sway elections. Then, we’ll dig into the history of the “I Voted” sticker and hear a perfect poem for Election Day. Plus, a listener shares what moving abroad taught them about the U.S. voting system. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Election betting is newly legal — and risks getting confused with polls” from NBC News “Exclusive: Election betting site Polymarket gives Trump a 67% chance of winning but is rife with fake ‘wash' trading, researchers say” from Fortune Crypto “Cryptoverse: U.S. election speculators play the prediction markets” from Reuters “Wall Street regulator moves to ban election betting, escalating fight over new market” from Politico “The Case for Legalizing Political Betting” from the Cato Institute “How ‘I Voted’ Stickers Became an Election Day Staple” from Business Insider We want to hear your answer to the Make Me Smart question. Leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART or email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org.

Today we're talking about a breakout story of this election cycle: the rise of prediction markets and betting on elections. For the first time in a century, Americans can legally place bets on election outcomes using a platform called Kalshi. But the Commodity Futures Trading Commission warns that these markets could warp the public’s understanding of our elections if they’re treated like polls. On this Election Day episode, Cantrell Dumas of Better Markets, a financial reform advocacy group, explains how Americans are dabbling in election betting, the legal questions surrounding these prediction markets, and why he believes manipulation of these markets has the potential to sway elections. Then, we’ll dig into the history of the “I Voted” sticker and hear a perfect poem for Election Day. Plus, a listener shares what moving abroad taught them about the U.S. voting system. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Election betting is newly legal — and risks getting confused with polls” from NBC News “Exclusive: Election betting site Polymarket gives Trump a 67% chance of winning but is rife with fake ‘wash' trading, researchers say” from Fortune Crypto “Cryptoverse: U.S. election speculators play the prediction markets” from Reuters “Wall Street regulator moves to ban election betting, escalating fight over new market” from Politico “The Case for Legalizing Political Betting” from the Cato Institute “How ‘I Voted’ Stickers Became an Election Day Staple” from Business Insider We want to hear your answer to the Make Me Smart question. Leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART or email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org.

Today we're talking about a breakout story of this election cycle: the rise of prediction markets and betting on elections. For the first time in a century, Americans can legally place bets on election outcomes using a platform called Kalshi. But the Commodity Futures Trading Commission warns that these markets could warp the public’s understanding of our elections if they’re treated like polls. On this Election Day episode, Cantrell Dumas of Better Markets, a financial reform advocacy group, explains how Americans are dabbling in election betting, the legal questions surrounding these prediction markets, and why he believes manipulation of these markets has the potential to sway elections. Then, we’ll dig into the history of the “I Voted” sticker and hear a perfect poem for Election Day. Plus, a listener shares what moving abroad taught them about the U.S. voting system. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Election betting is newly legal — and risks getting confused with polls” from NBC News “Exclusive: Election betting site Polymarket gives Trump a 67% chance of winning but is rife with fake ‘wash' trading, researchers say” from Fortune Crypto “Cryptoverse: U.S. election speculators play the prediction markets” from Reuters “Wall Street regulator moves to ban election betting, escalating fight over new market” from Politico “The Case for Legalizing Political Betting” from the Cato Institute “How ‘I Voted’ Stickers Became an Election Day Staple” from Business Insider We want to hear your answer to the Make Me Smart question. Leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART or email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org.

Legalized sports gambling is everywhere. Could betting on elections be next? Americans will soon be able to legally gamble on the presidential election. After a judge rejected the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's attempt to block it, financial exchange company Kashi launched the country's first fully regulated election-betting markets on Thursday. Capital markets reporter Declan Harty walks Playbook co-author Eugene Daniels through what this means for the election, and why some officials are ringing alarm bells.