Kalshi : Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment User:Oaktree b , could you please provide a source evaluation?  Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan ] ( Bloomberg News ) A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything ( Bloomberg News ) The Future of Futures: On Kalshi and Prediction Markets ( Los Angeles Review of Books ) Washington weighs plan to let Americans wager on elections ( Politico ) This new exchange lets investors vote yes or no on major events to hedge their portfolios ( CNBC ) Could Gambling on Elections Be ‘Bigger Than Sports Betting’?  A Trading Startup Shoots Its Shot ( The Information ) Kalshi, An MIT Betting Startup, Is Allowing People To Bet On Anything ( Forbes ), This Sequoia- and Henry Kravis-backed prediction market wants to turn opinions into money ( TechCrunch ), and :* Online-Trading Platform Will Let Investors Bet on Yes-or-No Questions ( The Wall Street Journal ) A market to bet on the future ( NPR ) The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events ( Bloomberg News ) Kalshi, le site qui permet de parier sur presque tout ( Tribune de Genève ) Kalshi Lets Exchange Traders Predict Price of Gas, Eyes New Event Outcome Trading Market (Casino).  Mooonswimmer 00:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll attempt it, most sources are pay-walled Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've skipped over some sources, due to formatting above (I only counted 12, but there are more than that).  Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Blomberg News (June 16, 2023) appears un-connected appears un-connected ?  Pay-walled ?  Unknown Blomberg news (May 26, 2022) appears un-connected ?  pay-walled ?  pay-walled ?  Unknown LA Review of Books writers appear un-connected appears reliable good half to third of the article is about this enterprise ✔ Yes Politico RS per wiki table [29] reliable source article is about the company seeking market regulator approval ✔ Yes CNBC appears un-connected I have no concerns ~ short article, but talks about the company ~ Partial The Information ?  paywalled ?  paywalled ?  paywalled ?  Unknown Error: a source must be specified ?  Unknown Forbes ?  unsure, from a Forbes contributor ?  Forbes contributors good half of the article about the firm ?  Unknown NPR ?  not known ?  not known ?  podcast, unable to listen currently ?  Unknown Blomberg News (April 20, 2023) ?  paywalled ?  paywalled ?  paywalled ?  Unknown Tribune de Geneve ?  paywalled ?  paywalled ?  paywalled ?  Unknown This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, we have 2 good sources, one meh source, rest I'm unable to evaluate due articles being paywalled.  Pro Tip: Don't reply to the comment when using a source table, it doesn't display correctly and you have to fiddle-fart around with the table.  Argh.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm at work currently and don't want to start blasting a podcast from NPR for all to hear.  I'm not really seeing notability with the two sources above.  Almost, but not quite at GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries.  No need for the NPR podcast, I should've specified that it's a "source to consider" rather than something to evaluate for the source assessment table.  Here are gift links that will allow you to read the Bloomberg articles: The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events , A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything , Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan For the Fortune article ( From Lil Nas X to the climate, Kalshi wants to let investors bet on it all ), disable Javascript and you'll be able to access it.  These two articles are not behind a paywall: How Event Contracts at Kalshi Differ From Sports Betting Did Kalshi Kill PredictIt?  Friday’s Decision On Election Wagering Will Be Revealing Mooonswimmer 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article by The Economist and and this one published in The American Prospect can also be considered.  Mooonswimmer 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - very notable per Mooonswimmer 's refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable, but should be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is not a PR placement. Masckarpone ( talk ) 04:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Checkuser note: blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles ( talk ) 17:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete appear to be trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release. Article is written promotionally. Cool idea for a company, which I have actually heard of and played around with, but probably not passing WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at the present time. Andre 🚐 04:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide a source assessment of the articles I linked above? And which sources are press releases? Regarding the promotional tone, I agree that the bit about being a competitor to PredictIt could be worded (or removed entirely), but I don't see how the article is written promotionally? Please provide suggestions on what to tone down on, what to rephrase, and what is best removed entirely. Mooonswimmer 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Routine coverage is day to day grist of the mill stuff like taking a press release and writing a puff piece about it on a blog. You can tell when it's stuff like "A New X Will Release a New Y" without that thing having actually happened yet. Basically a routine product announcement or announcement of new business opportunities such as raising money, announcing a new hire etc., do not go to notability. See also WP:SIGCOV . WP:LASTING It's true that the Bloomberg pieces, as a whole, constitute a fairly in-depth profile on the company. Politico, Forbes, and Techcrunch definitely feel routine to me. The rest, I guess you could make the argument, and maybe we should. It seems that they are largely about this one event, namely the CFTC approving prediction markets to operate. If that is the only notable aspect I think it is a fail of WP:NCORP . You can make a GNG argument if you will argue that The Information, LA Review of Books, etc are comprehensive in-depth and not routine. I will admit it's close and I could change my mind if perhaps, there was a reliable journal article, book, or academic source. Andre 🚐 18:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bloomberg ( article #1 , article #2 ) The Information ( article ) Tribune de Geneve ( article ) CNBC ( article ) Fortune ( article ) Los Angeles Review of Books ( article ) Articles on companies are not my strong suit, but I believe that these 7 comprehensive in-depth articles published by independent, secondary, reliable sources would be enough to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP . This NPR segment is also worth taking a look at. I believe the TechCrunch , Forbes , and The Wall Street Journal articles only partially contribute to notability as these types of pieces constitute relatively routine coverage considering they were published in the early stages of the company. There are plenty of other reliable sources that discuss Kalshi in-depth but mostly within the context of the recent CFTC political trading proposal, so I am not counting these articles towards GNG. It is also worth noting that Kalshi is one of only a few designated contract markets in America ( "a regulatory classification that puts Kalshi in the same bucket as historic derivatives exchanges like the CME Group-owned Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the former New York Board of Trade, known today as ICE Futures U.S." ) and is the first and only federally regulated exchange for trading on real-world events. As "gimmicky"/"promotional" as it sounds, I think it has some significance. Mooonswimmer 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this promotional and I'm assuming paid-for article. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH . Most sources are obviously press release churnalism. - MrOllie ( talk ) 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bloomberg ( article #1 , article #2 ) The Information ( article ) Tribune de Geneve ( article ) CNBC ( article ) Fortune ( article ) Los Angeles Review of Books ( article ) Could you please provide an evaluation of these sources? Articles on companies aren't my forte, but I would have assumed that 5+ comprehensive, in-depth articles published in independent, secondary, reliable sources would be enough for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP . "promotional". It would be greatly appreciated if you could reword, remove, or point out any material you deem promotional. I see how the "PredictIt competitor" part could be seen as promotional but I need some further guidance. Your help in toning down the article would be appreciated. "assuming paid-for". I regret to hear that that's what you assume, especially considering I spent hours creating what I thought was a well-written, balanced, and well-sourced article, but that is not the case. This is a company from my city, which currently runs the only regulated platform in a field I'm very interested in (betting on real-world events), and which I have read about very often lately in the context of their election trading proposal. It has been on my list for quite some time and I assumed the available coverage was more than enough. Mooonswimmer 20:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the references listed above by Mooonswimmer. In addition, there are more listed on the company's Y Combinator profile: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/kalshi . - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be very helpful if those editors who are arguing that the sourcing consists of press releases would review the sources offered by User:Mooonswimmer . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:HEY , sources have been located that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Weak Delete probably WP:TOOSOON . I'll preface my !vote by pointing out that a lot of the coverage is recent. For example on June 12 2023, the topic company submitted a selection of self-certified contracts to the CFTC which effectively would allow companies to "bet" on the outcome elections. This has generated "coverage" and "news" and we're faced with a couple of questions. First, is the coverage about the proposed "product" (i.e. the contract) or about the company. And second, if its about the company, is it "in-depth" and "Independent Content". With one exception, none of the sources are convincing and appear to simply summarise events to date without offering any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . The exception is the LA Review of Books article which I believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. At this time I'm unable to locate any other source which meets the criteria and we require "multiple sources". I'm open to changing my mind if another source is eventually located. HighKing ++ 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] lengthy discussion about sources - unroll if want to read and/or contribute Not that recent, we are talking about coverage over the last few years. Did you also review the sources on the Y Combinator profile? - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A source assessment table would be appreciated. I intentionally picked out sources that don't really focus on the Kalshi’s recent submission of congressional control contracts, and avoided the more routine coverage published shortly after the company's inception. Mooonswimmer 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I won't bother building a source assessment table because there isn't a template for GNG/NCORP, but I've looked in detail at every source. I started a long response but I'm trying to avoid writing long responses where unnecessary. If you like, pick a source you think meets NCORP and I'll tell you why IMHO it doesn't. Also a Y Combinator profile would not contain "Independent Content" seeing as its written by the company (the second sentence even starts with the words "We built Kalshi....") and Y Combinator is involved with the topic company as its incubator. HighKing ++ 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What I think @ Indefensible meant was the articles listed on the Y Combinator profile, but I've already included the ones I believe meet GNG/NCORP. We can start with the first article I offered: A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything The article is from Bloomberg , a reputable and reliable publication, and qualifies as a secondary, independent source, as it is authored by respected journalists unrelated to the company. The content's significance and coverage seem to align with the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, as the information reported in the article does not appear to fall under the examples of trivial coverage mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) . While it is true that the article references quite heavily the company's founders for information, this is not a piece of churnalism , and the fact that Bloomberg follows trusted editorial standards suggests that a degree of trust can be placed in the reported information. Some situations may demand truly independent sources, like investigative journalism, but in this case, the pursuit of extreme intellectual independence might not be necessary, given the credibility of Bloomberg's reporting and editorial practices and the nature of the information. If we were to limit ourselves to purely independent sources, what would any secondary party actually be able to say about any company itself? The article provides comprehensive coverage of Kalshi's inception, including the founders' background, regulatory hurdles, and the potential risks and benefits of its business model.  It doesn't simply regurgitate information like a rewarmed press release but delves into the complexities of prediction markets, the regulatory landscape, and the company's interaction with regulators.  The piece goes beyond superficial reporting by providing context and delving into the history of prediction markets, regulatory dynamics, the founders' motivations, the complexities of operating a prediction market platform, the broader debates about the role of prediction markets in finance.  It provides nuanced information about the company's approach, the concerns raised by regulators, and how the founders navigated these challenges and includes insights from Kalshi's founders, regulators, and industry experts.  The article also presents opposing viewpoints, such as the concerns raised by regulators about potential manipulation.  Far from trivial and shallow reporting, in my opinion.  Do passages like this not constitute independent journalistic opinion, interpretation, additional insight, and analysis: That Kalshi prevailed was less a testament to Silicon Valley-style innovation than it was to persistent lobbying and legal wrangling.  Lopes Lara and Mansour didn’t invent anything from scratch; they took a well-established concept and forced a change in the way it’s governed.  The result, depending on whom you ask, could usher in a new era of market-based enlightenment, or it may push Wall Street’s most destructive tendencies even further into the real world.  At least this is how I see it based on my personal understanding of guidelines.  Please let me know how you view it and why you think this article is not up to par.  Mooonswimmer 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First, there's no information provided *about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company.  There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of *this* company.  Second, once we ignore the information provided by the company and look for analysis/opinion/etc, we're left with a mere couple of sentences which to my mind falls short of what is required to meet CORPDEPTH.  This article provides more opinions about the market than about the company.  Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment".  As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization - which to my mind covers most of the authors opinions in this article.  HighKing ++ 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First, there's no information provided *about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company While the article does discuss the market in general, it's an article about Kalshi; its founders, inception to gaining regulatory approval, business model.  Is this not information *about the company*?  The information is not solely based on the company's own statements but is also provided through the lens of journalistic reporting.  Could you give me an example of potential information about any company that one could gather without using a source affiliated with said company?  And is there anything that says for notability, we cannot use reliable sources whose reporting depends on sources affiliated with the organization?  There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of *this* company.  There is indeed quite a bit of superfluous information about the market in general, but there is more than a decent amount of information about the company itself.  I mentioned the information about the overall market to drive the point that this isn't a lazy piece of churnalism that's rehashing a press release, it's an article that discusses Kalshi while also including opinion and a lot of context regarding prediction markets and regulation in general.  Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment".  Does the highlighted part of the article not discuss Kalshi's unique contribution to the market and its potential significance in the financial landscape, and is not the authors' opinion on its innovation, or rather lack thereof?  In my opinion, it's an example of some of the original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject we'd be looking for in such a source.  The guideline says " Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject," not that the content in its entirety should be original analysis.  There is plenty of original analysis, investigation, and opinion in the article, even if it does not form the bulk of it.  As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization The source doesn't only describe a specific topic related to the company.  As I mentioned above, the article covers the company's background, regulatory hurdles, and plenty of information *about the company itself*.  I can point out this information if necessary.  CORPDEPTH states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.  Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.  Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.  The article provides a detailed overview.  It includes some commentary and analysis.  It certainly provides the company with a level of attention extending beyond brief mentions and routine announcements.  Would you say the article's coverage falls under any of the examples of trivial coverage highlighted?  I personally don't see how it would fail CORPDEPTH.  My apologies for the lengthy responses.  Mooonswimmer 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is lengthy and I've been guilty of that myself in the past.  I've rolled it up so it won't put others off - they can still unroll and contribute it they like, hope that's OK. I'll try to keep this focussed and short.  Don't get hung up on the word "information" - it represents "independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc".  Examples?  Analyst reports for one.  Or perhaps an article comparing this company's strategy/performance to a competitor.  Or a published independent case study on their market.  Or even the LA Books Review article just about gets over the line.  Not regurgitated company bumpf with general information that originates from sources affiliated with the company.  You say there's a "decent amount" of information about the company itself.  Can you point to parts that clearly originate from a source unaffiliated with the company and which have information about the company?  This article (and others) rely entirely on comments/information either attributed directly to the founders or people associated with them, or simply comment/summarise the public CFTC papers .  You ask if the highlighted part discusses Kalshi's "unique contribution to the market", etc.  No, it doesn't - or at least not in a way that satisfied CORPDEPTH.  It's a mere three sentences which is insufficient in my opinion to meet CORPDEPTH and the final sentence isn't even relevant as it's about the future direction of the market as a result of the new decision.  Where else in the article is there any in-depth "Independent Content" that we can look to?  I remain unmoved (on this article).  You claim this is deep/significant coverage which contains analysis of the company.  But ::when you read it carefully it is clear that the information *about the company* is attributed to company-related sources.  The remaining pieces are lightweight, more about the future of the market in general than the company and insufficient detail for CORPDEPTH in any case.  But as I've said earlier, we have one source.  Another and I'm happy to change my ! vote.  Is there perhaps an analyst report covering the "predictive market" space which talks about this company?  HighKing ++ 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries, I hope a few other editors will contribute to the assessment of this source as well.  I'll try to address this concisely to prevent any unnecessarily long, circular discussions.  Would you say the crux of your issue with this source is it failing CORPDEPTH?  If so, could you briefly state why you think the article fails to meet it?  I believe the article meets the criteria for CORPDEPTH as it offers substantial coverage that goes beyond what is routine and trivial.  The content includes a detailed account of the company's founding and the regulatory challenges it faced, which I consider to be substantial coverage of the company itself.  The level of attention provided in the article goes far beyond mere mentions or routine updates.  While it's true that a significant portion of the article draws information from sources affiliated with the company or regulatory bodies, there is no clear indication that this prevents the article from meeting the criteria for CORPDEPTH, based on my interpretation of the guideline.  Also, what do you think of this USBETS article?  Mooonswimmer 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lets stick with one source at a time.  The crux of the issue is not just CORPDEPTH, but ORGIND and CORPDEPTH together.  You can't take content that fails ORGIND and use that content to pass CORPDEPTH which I think is what you're trying to do.  You say above the source offers substantial coverage - the content goes far beyond mere mentions, etc.  But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc.  That's the point I'm making.  That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability.  Ignore that content, all that fails ORGIND.  What's left that meets CORPDEPTH?  That's the question I'm asking.  Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph.  You've isolated three sentences so far which I've said  (a) they're not all even about the company and are tangental at best and  (b) we need more than a couple of sentences.  HighKing ++ 17:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc.  That's the point I'm making.  That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability.  What is your basis for this?  The article doesn't really go against anything WP:ORGIND mentions, in my opinion.  Adherence to ORIND doesn't imply chasing unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information.  This can result in absurdity, as highlightedin this conversation on the talk page of the explanatory essay Wikipedia_talk:Independent_sources#Relationship_between_this_topic_and_ORGIND (where you also coincidentally participated).  The authors of this article are unrelated to the company.  There is no reason to believe they have any vested interests and it is not a sponsored post.  There is no self-promotion or product placement.  They are respected, senior reporters and this is their niche.  The article was not produced by anyone affiliated with Kalshi, it was produced by the reporters and by Bloomberg.  It isn't a copied/regurgitated press release, as it includes some original analysis, interpretation, and investigation, and there's consensus that Bloomberg has a reliable fact-checking and editorial process.  The article doesn't seem to fall under any of the examples of dependent coverage listed.  There's a distinction between a press release or an article simply rehashing a press release and an article containing a lot information derived from parties associated with the company, or with regulators.  Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph.  When Lopes Lara and Mansour approached the CFTC in the spring of 2019, some officials in the part of the agency responsible for reviewing their application, the Division of Market Oversight, were skeptical, according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are confidential.  There was a sense among the DMO’s seasoned regulators that, for all Kalshi’s talk of revolutionizing finance, this was just a turbocharged iteration of something that had previously been rejected, and with good reason.  But it wasn’t the DMO’s job to look at the big picture.  The staff review was supposed to be limited to ensuring Kalshi could complete a checklist, “23 Core Principles of a Designated Contract Market,” which included keeping good records and having the requisite financial resources, among other items.  The five commissioners would then make a decision.  With Trump in the White House, three of them were Republicans ideologically predisposed to the further proliferation of markets into American life [...] Despite the overriding reservations of some DMO members about the riskiness of event contracts, Kalshi demonstrated it could meet the 23 criteria and was approved unanimously.  “Once they check all of the boxes, they’re in,” says one person with direct knowledge of the CFTC’s review process.  The part that says according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process = anon source.  We don't usually place weight on anon sources.  In any case, from context it appears the anon sources were people familiar with the internal reaction at CDTC/DMO.  But - and please this is the key point - this para contains zero in-depth details about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.  This is a discussion about an application and about the general (political) environment.  CORPDEPTH - Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the company or organization. Not a gossipy anon-source description of the reaction to their application within a different org. HighKing ++ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kalshi’s case was bolstered by the emergence of a number of prediction markets that hadn’t bothered to try to get regulatory approval. One upstart, Polymarket, let its customers bet hundreds of thousands of dollars anonymously using cryptocurrencies, making it difficult to track. Another market, Augur, which facilitates private wagers between parties using the blockchain, couldn’t regulate bets at all and thus hadn’t stopped users from betting on whether public figures would be assassinated. Kalshi, by comparison, argued it was doing everything right. (The CFTC would go on to fine Polymarket $1.4 million in January 2022 for running an unlicensed exchange. Polymarket says it’s now complying and is “excited to help pioneer the next phase of smart contract-based financial solutions in collaboration with regulators.”) Same as above, fails CORPEPTH. HighKing ++ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Up to this point, the CFTC’s process for vetting their exchange hadn’t involved asking exactly what markets they planned to run. That discussion came after approval, by which stage momentum was already firmly on Lopes Lara and Mansour’s side. When Kalshi sent across a preliminary list of 30 proposed contracts in March, it unleashed chaos within the already overworked DMO. The division was set up to deal with exchanges that might create two or three new markets a year. Kalshi’s business model called for new ones practically every day. Some of the proposals were uncontroversial, such as questions tied to the weather or gross domestic product. Others, among the initial list and submitted subsequently, seemed troubling. DMO officials worried that contracts tied to Covid-19 numbers, for example, amounted to gambling on human suffering, which is one reason markets on war and terrorism are prohibited. (Similar logic doomed ex-admiral John Poindexter’s Policy Analysis Market, a controversial George W. Bush-era plan to uncover intelligence by getting security analysts to bet on events in the Middle East.) Regulators also couldn’t see how speculating on who would win the Grammys, say, was any less a form of gambling than betting on the New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl. Futures contracts are supposed to allow traders to protect themselves against economic risk, and it was hard to understand who, apart from perhaps John Legend, might need to hedge the winner of best R&B album. Same as above. We're not writing about the CFTC or the DMO, nor are we writing about the market. Still fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kalshi played down such risks, noting that manipulation and insider trading were concerns for any market. It had built a surveillance system and said it would hire a team to monitor for anything improper. “People trade on events all the time—they just use options and other instruments that are harder to track. This is a way to bring all that into the open,” Mansour says, summarizing the argument. Kalshi also didn’t include contracts on elections, which the Democrats on the CFTC might have considered a red line. This is a summary of parts of the public letter. Still fails CORPDEPTH as above HighKing ++ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Today, Kalshi is growing. Its staff of 32 operates out of an office in New York’s SoHo with big windows and exposed brick. It’s also added some new names to its board, including Quintenz, who left the CFTC 10 months after Kalshi was approved. He says he joined because of “my interest in the hedging and risk management opportunities event contracts could provide the market.”  As of mid-May, there were 75 markets on the company’s website, such as “Will there be negative GDP growth by Q4?” and “Will NASA land a person on the moon before 2025?”  The exchange recently reached 2 million contracts traded a week, a jump from where it started but still a comparatively tiny figure compared with other futures exchanges. Many of the early adopters are prediction market enthusiasts, lured away from PredictIt and Polymarket. Wagers on the site are currently capped at $25,000, but Kalshi has said it hopes to increase that to $100,000 and then beyond, depending on the market. A small amount of information about the company based on information on their website and a quote from a (new) board member - no independent analysis/opinion/etc. No clear indication of fact checking (other than perhaps checking that the summary accurately represents what was on the website and what was said - which still means it is PRIMARY). Also inadequate for CORPDEPTH. We can also move on to another source if you remain completely unconvinced. Insight from other editors would be appreciated. Mooonswimmer 01:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's pause for a sec. If you can't accept/understand that (IMO) this Bloomberg source fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I really don't see the point in going through this for every other source either. You complain about unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information but are failing to grasp that this has *nothing* to do with "ideals" and *nothing* to do with the "presentation" of information. This is a really simple process. We want indications of "Independent Content" not repackaged company information. The journalist has done a fine job with this article and this source can be used to write about the process of applying and how obstacles were overcome, etc, but we look for a particular type of source for establishing notability and this doesn't meet the criteria. HighKing ++ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please point out the specific way in which the article contradicts the guidelines outlined in ORGIND? The unrealistic journalistic ideal I mentioned is expecting that sources of the information in the article be strictly unaffiliated with the company, even when the coverage is significant and includes original interpretation, and when the consensus is that the unvested publisher has high editorial standards. ORGIND doesn't require each source contributing to notability to be an investigative journalism piece; it simply specifies that the coverage must steer clear of being a press release, a sponsored, or a piece of churnalism. A secondary party needs to consult primary sources for their reporting. How can one possibly compose an analyst report without employing company-affiliated sources like financial statements, earnings reports, investor presentations, and even press releases, for example? If you could briefly point out how the article fails ORGIND, that would be appreciated. I might be missing something in the guideline. We can then briefly discuss a few other articles, including the second Bloomberg article, the USBets articles, and this Gaming Today article . Your insights on how they fail CORPDEPTH and ORGIND would also be helpful. Mooonswimmer 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mooonswimmer Lets take it to my Talk page rather than here? This isn't the place for in-depth discussions like the one we're having and it just annoys most other editors. HighKing ++ 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Pinging nominator Oaktree b and Andrevan . Oaktree b , your rationale was "most of the sourcing used, while in RS, is about other things and mention this firm in passing. " Andrevan , you mentioned that the coverage is "trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release". To me, this is clearly not the case in the list of sources I provided, as the coverage clearly isn't trivial or incidental, nor are they press releases or rehashed press releases. Could you please address the sources I listed and explain how the coverage is trivial, in-passing mentions? Here they are again, with a few additional sources: Bloomberg ( A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything , The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events ) Los Angeles Review of Books ( The Future of Futures: On Kalshi and Prediction Markets ) Fortune ( From Lil Nas X to the climate, Kalshi wants to let investors bet on it all ) The Information ( Could Gambling on Elections Be ‘Bigger Than Sports Betting’? A Trading Startup Shoots Its Shot ) Tribune de Geneve ( Kalshi, le site qui permet de parier sur presque tout ) CNBC ( This new exchange lets investors vote yes or no on major events to hedge their portfolios ) Gaming Today ( How Event Contracts at Kalshi Differ From Sports Betting ) USBets ( Did Kalshi Kill PredictIt? Friday’s Decision On Election Wagering Will Be Revealing ) Mooonswimmer 17:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of your sources are pay-walled from my location, I'll trust you to enlighten us as to what they say. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last two are blocked by my firewall at work, so no comment. I haven't reviewed Fortune as given here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I replied above with gift links that will allow you to access the Bloomberg articles. The last two sources listed here seem to be accessible, and you can bypass the Fortune paywall by disabling Javascript . Mooonswimmer 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the content of the article in Tribune de Geneve : Mooonswimmer 04:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Content of Tribune de Geneve article that is behind a hard paywall Sondage et prévisions Kalshi, le site qui permet de parier sur presque tout Une plateforme de trading reconnue par le régulateur américain permet de faire des paris sur les événements politiques et économiques, le climat ou encore la course à la lune. Nicolas Pinguely Publié le 06.06.2022, 11h28 Un retour de l’Homme sur la lune, d’ici à 2025, figure parmi les paris proposés sur le site Kalshi. Presque 90% des personnes ayant misé estiment que cela ne se produira pas. KEYSTONE L’Homme retournera-t-il sur la lune d’ici à 2025? L’économie américaine va-t-elle entrer en récession au second trimestre? L’année 2022 sera-t-elle la plus chaude jamais enregistrée? Aux États-Unis, il est désormais possible de parier sur presque tous les événements sur le site Kalshi. Un phénomène nouveau qui risque de bousculer le monde des prévisions économiques et politiques. Créé en 2018 par deux anciens étudiants du Massachusetts Institute of Technology de Boston, Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour, Kalshi est en train de décoller. L’année dernière, les deux entrepreneurs ont récolté plus de 30 millions de dollars pour assurer le développement de leur bébé. Le broker en ligne Charles Schwab et la firme de capital-investissement Sequoia Capital ont notamment mis la main à la poche. Les financiers approuvent Le monde de la finance semble enthousiaste. «Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique», confie John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud à Genève. «Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique.» John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud Fonctionnement en mode binaire Son fonctionnement est assez simple. Les paris sont pris sur un mode binaire. Il s’agit pour les investisseurs de répondre oui ou non à une question. Si vous avez vu juste, vous empochez 1 dollar par contrat acheté. À l’inverse, vous ne toucherez rien du tout si votre pari est perdant. Durant la vie du contrat, la cote va évoluer entre zéro et un dollar. Aujourd’hui, ces paris sont réservés aux personnes basées outre-Atlantique. Un exemple? Prenons l’une des quelque septante questions aujourd’hui posées sur le site. Le Sénat américain va-t-il réguler les géants de la technologie avant janvier 2023? À la cote actuelle, un parieur payera 16 cents par contrat s’il estime que cela va se produire. Mais il devra débourser 84 cents s’il pense que la régulation ne sera pas mise en place à cette date. Cela donne une bonne idée du sentiment des investisseurs. Dans ce cas précis, rares sont ceux qui envisagent une percée significative dans le domaine cette année. Dès lors, Kalshi serait une solide jauge pour appréhender le futur. «Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient», souligne Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement. Point positif, les cotes des différents paris sont librement consultables sur le site. Pour John Plassard aussi, le modèle développé par Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour va dans le bon sens. «Là tu paries de l’argent, alors tu ne vas pas indiquer quelque chose qui ne fait pas sens. Les convictions sont beaucoup plus fortes, par exemple en matière de chômage ou d’inflation», soutient-il. Mieux que les sondages Le site serait une alternative intéressante aux sondages classiques. «Cette plateforme répond à une vraie demande, estime Anton Sussland. Cela donne une autre vue que les sondages, souvent imparfaits, particulièrement lorsqu’il s’agit de jauger les risques de récession ou d’anticiper les décisions politiques.» Ce dernier rappelle qu’en 2016, personne n’avait vu venir le Brexit anglais ou l’élection de Trump à la présidence américaine. Vraiment plus intéressant que les sondages? «Clairement oui, répond John Plassard. Dans un sondage Bloomberg sur les statistiques économiques à venir, les gens vont parfois exagérer et mettre des valeurs extrêmes sans réelle raison, ce qui crée un biais.» «Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient.» Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement En vérité, le concept n’est pas totalement nouveau. Une plateforme similaire avait été créée au début des années 2000. «Intrade.com avait été lancée en 2001 et a disparu en 2013, faute d’avoir trouvé un cadre régulatoire adéquat», explique Anton Sussland. À l’époque, ce site très populaire a connu son heure de gloire lors de l’élection d’Obama en 2008, dont il avait prévu la victoire. Par la suite, il a été contraint de mettre la clé sous la porte, sous la pression des autorités de régulation, soit la Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Aux États-Unis, cette dernière est très scrupuleuse et conservatrice pour tout ce qui a trait aux plateformes financières d’échanges, de jeux et de paris sportifs. L’intérêt public est prépondérant. Les mises sur les assassinats, les actes terroristes ou encore les guerres sont par exemple clairement interdites. Aval des autorités De son côté, Kalshi a été officiellement reconnue comme plateforme de trading par la CFTC à fin 2020. La protection offerte aux investisseurs s’est avérée déterminante pour obtenir ce feu vert. «Kalshi permet de vous couvrir contre une série d’événements susceptibles d’affecter vos finances», peut-on d’ailleurs lire sur leur page web. À l’heure actuelle, deux autres sites américains permettent déjà de parier sur les résultats politiques. Mais à une moindre échelle. L’un est lié à l’Université de l’Iowa (iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu) et l’autre se nomme predictit.org. Si tous les deux ont obtenu une exemption de la part de la CFTC, ils ne sont pas pour autant reconnus comme plateforme officielle de trading. Grâce à cette reconnaissance, Kashi veut, elle, passer à la vitesse supérieure. Nicolas Pinguely est journaliste à la rubrique économique depuis 2018. Spécialiste en finance, il a travaillé par le passé pour le magazine Bilan, à l'Agefi et au Temps. Il a aussi occupé différents postes dans des banques et sociétés financières, notamment dans la microfinance. Plus d'infos Vous avez trouvé une erreur? Merci de nous la signaler. Mooonswimmer 04:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While this discussion is heavily tilted towards Delete, as of today there is a discussion about additional sources and since at least one editor says that it's close to meeting GNG, I'll relist it for another week. If those who are arguing Keep could point out the references that solidified your opinion, that would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-future-of-futures-on-kalshi-and-prediction-markets/ is critical and reviews the subject in detail, it should meet. Need to review the other references again. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure how good of a source GamingToday is, but as far as I can tell https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/kalshi-event-contracts-vs-sports-betting/ is another in-depth and independent review of the subject. Also somewhat critical: "However, Kalshi can’t offer event contracts on certain events.  Federal law prohibits event contracts on geopolitical events like whether a war will break out in a certain country.  Kalshi also can’t offer event contracts on political events, like elections, votes, or impeachments. " So unless someone knows that GamingToday is not considered reliable from somewhere, it should also meet. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Same thing for https://www.usbets.com/did-kalshi-kill-predictit/ , this is an independent piece which the subject refused to communicate with the author on. It contains external analysis such as: "Harry Crane, a professor of statistics at Rutgers who has studied prediction markets, says PredictIt’s loyal and engaged user base offers a case study in why Kalshi offering regulated political prediction markets is of public interest.  That could be viewed as a positive by Kalshi as it looks for approval to offer political markets. " That should be 3 without even including any of the others from generally reliable sources including Forbes, WSJ, etc. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have posted gift links above to 3 Bloomberg articles behind a paywall: The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events , A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything , Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan This article by The Economist and and this one published in The American Prospect can also be considered. I also mentioned these in the discussion as well after you voted and did not include them in my initial lists, they're worth taking a look at: How Event Contracts at Kalshi Differ From Sports Betting Did Kalshi Kill PredictIt? Friday’s Decision On Election Wagering Will Be Revealing In addition, there many articles that cover Kalshi in-depth, but mostly within the context of its latest CFTC request, so they might not count towards notability: Bloomberg Law , Politico , Public Gaming Magazine , Bonus , WSJ , Bloomberg , and others A._B. , your insight would be appreciated as well. Mooonswimmer 21:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Indefensible and Mooonswimmer , I don't typically get such an immediate response to comments made when relisting a discussion. It would be useful for those editors who advocated Deletion to return to assess the articles you present right here. L iz Read! Talk! 23:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The LARB ref should be uncontroversial; Andre wrote above that "You can make a GNG argument if you will argue that The Information, LA Review of Books, etc are comprehensive in-depth and not routine. " HighKing also wrote "The exception is the LA Review of Books article which I believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. " The question will be whether the others are enough or if that is just a half-step to meeting. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/05/voters-betting-elections-trading-00054723 is also good with a couple primary quotes sprinkled in and not just routine, although that reference might be more debatable. But from GamingToday, USBets, and others (which Mooonswimmer seems to have added more of that I have not reviewed), in my opinion there should be no question the subject qualifies for encyclopedic inclusion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oaktree b (the AFD nominator) also evaluated the Politico ref as meeting towards GNG in their assessment table. So we should have at least 2 good sources right there. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] True, except we need to evaluate sourcing against NCORP and Oaktree b has been known to completely ignore NCORP criteria (as seen in another recent AfD discussion). HighKing ++ 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of these sources can be described as follows: Sources that discuss the CFTC application and the ensuing drama that enfolded. None of those articles provide more than a generic description of the topic company. Some might talk about the general market too and mention others in the market. This includes pieces from Enonomist, Bloomberg, WSJ, publicgaming.com, bonus.com and bloomberglaw. These fail NCORP. Most !voters saying that these sources meet our criteria argue to "trust the journalist" and "but its a reliable source" which either shows a lack of understanding of NCORP or wilfully ignoring ORGIND's requirements for content to be *clearly* *attributable* to a *source* *unaffiliated* to the subject. The USABets article discusses a "theory" that the topic company was responsible for shutting down another organization, PredictIt. It starts with unsubstantiated gossip and rumours, tweets, podcasts and blogs and goes on to get comments from people about the *theory* but not about the company, not content we can use to establish notability, insufficient in-depth information *about* *the* *company*. The gamingtoday article gives an independent overview of the topic company and their "products" and their place in the market.  In my opinion, this meets NCORP.  The prospect article is better since it doesn't just regurgitate company info or the various intrigues of their application - the author provides their own opinion/analysis between Kalshi's hiring of ex-CFTC officials and Bankman-Fried's previous attempts to secure favorable regulations.  It goes on to also draw similarities with the involvement of Sean McElwee.  These comparissons are not just about the application but are also an analysis of longer-term company strategy and are independent opinion.  In my opinion, it meets NCORP.  I'm changing my ! vote to Keep based on the above sources.  HighKing ++ 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With HighKing switching their evaluation to keep, I think we should probably have a good case for consensus on inclusion here.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be ideal if Oaktree b could evaluate the remaining sources and provide their final assessment.  Input from Andrevan and MrOllie would also be useful.  Mooonswimmer 04:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's pretty much a ! keep anyway based on my first table with two good-ish sources.  The rest are gravy.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep