teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 18 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

auto-fix: strip 5 broken wiki links

Browse source 
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents 2026-03-18 11:22:12 +00:00
parent 6ce30dd429
commit ab01a67e5a
2 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
domains/internet-finance/polymarket-achieved-us-regulatory-legitimacy-through-qcx-acquisition-establishing-prediction-markets-as-cftc-regulated-derivatives.md
View file

@ -30,25 +30,25 @@ The federal-state jurisdictional conflict is unresolved. If states successfully
### Additional Evidence (challenge) ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
*Source: [[2026-01-00-nevada-polymarket-lawsuit-prediction-markets]] | Added: 2026-03-16* *Source: 2026-01-00-nevada-polymarket-lawsuit-prediction-markets | Added: 2026-03-16*
Nevada Gaming Control Board's January 2026 lawsuit against Polymarket directly challenges the CFTC regulatory legitimacy established through QCX acquisition. Nevada court found NGCB 'reasonably likely to prevail on the merits' and rejected Polymarket's exclusive federal jurisdiction argument, indicating state courts do not accept CFTC authority as dispositive. Massachusetts issued similar preliminary injunction against Kalshi. This represents coordinated state pushback against federal preemption. Nevada Gaming Control Board's January 2026 lawsuit against Polymarket directly challenges the CFTC regulatory legitimacy established through QCX acquisition. Nevada court found NGCB 'reasonably likely to prevail on the merits' and rejected Polymarket's exclusive federal jurisdiction argument, indicating state courts do not accept CFTC authority as dispositive. Massachusetts issued similar preliminary injunction against Kalshi. This represents coordinated state pushback against federal preemption.
### Additional Evidence (extend) ### Additional Evidence (extend)
*Source: [[2026-02-00-cftc-prediction-market-rulemaking]] | Added: 2026-03-16* *Source: 2026-02-00-cftc-prediction-market-rulemaking | Added: 2026-03-16*
CFTC's imminent rulemaking signal in February 2026 represents the agency moving from case-by-case enforcement to comprehensive regulatory framework, attempting to establish federal primacy before courts resolve jurisdiction questions CFTC's imminent rulemaking signal in February 2026 represents the agency moving from case-by-case enforcement to comprehensive regulatory framework, attempting to establish federal primacy before courts resolve jurisdiction questions
### Additional Evidence (challenge) ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
*Source: [[2026-01-30-npr-kalshi-19-federal-lawsuits]] | Added: 2026-03-18* *Source: 2026-01-30-npr-kalshi-19-federal-lawsuits | Added: 2026-03-18*
Consumer class action lawsuits alleging prediction markets worsen gambling addiction create political risk independent of legal outcomes. Four class-action suits seeking certification demonstrate that even if prediction markets win federal preemption arguments, the gambling addiction narrative generates political pressure that could constrain operations or invite Congressional intervention. Daniel Wallach (gaming attorney): 'They're engaging in gambling, no matter what they're trying to call it.' Consumer class action lawsuits alleging prediction markets worsen gambling addiction create political risk independent of legal outcomes. Four class-action suits seeking certification demonstrate that even if prediction markets win federal preemption arguments, the gambling addiction narrative generates political pressure that could constrain operations or invite Congressional intervention. Daniel Wallach (gaming attorney): 'They're engaging in gambling, no matter what they're trying to call it.'
### Additional Evidence (challenge) ### Additional Evidence (challenge)
*Source: [[2026-02-26-hklaw-prediction-market-jurisdictional-battle]] | Added: 2026-03-18* *Source: 2026-02-26-hklaw-prediction-market-jurisdictional-battle | Added: 2026-03-18*
Polymarket's CFTC regulatory status is now under direct challenge in 50+ state enforcement actions. Nevada, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio, Connecticut, and New York have all brought enforcement actions arguing that sports prediction markets are state-regulated gaming, not CFTC-regulated derivatives. The Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi's stay in February 2026, and 36+ states filed amicus briefs in the Fourth Circuit opposing federal preemption. This suggests Polymarket's regulatory legitimacy through CFTC compliance may not protect it from state-level gaming enforcement. Polymarket's CFTC regulatory status is now under direct challenge in 50+ state enforcement actions. Nevada, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio, Connecticut, and New York have all brought enforcement actions arguing that sports prediction markets are state-regulated gaming, not CFTC-regulated derivatives. The Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi's stay in February 2026, and 36+ states filed amicus briefs in the Fourth Circuit opposing federal preemption. This suggests Polymarket's regulatory legitimacy through CFTC compliance may not protect it from state-level gaming enforcement.

2
inbox/archive/2026-03-00-ebg-kalshi-litigation-preemption-analysis.md
View file

@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ For futarchy: this matters because a futarchy governance market operating on Sol
**KB connections:** **KB connections:**
- The express preemption gap is the root cause of all the litigation — claim candidate - The express preemption gap is the root cause of all the litigation — claim candidate
- The "dual compliance" problem for decentralized protocols is novel and not in the KB - The "dual compliance" problem for decentralized protocols is novel and not in the KB
- Connects to [[Ooki DAO proved that DAOs without legal wrappers face general partnership liability]] — same pattern of decentralized protocols facing worse legal treatment than centralized ones - Connects to Ooki DAO proved that DAOs without legal wrappers face general partnership liability — same pattern of decentralized protocols facing worse legal treatment than centralized ones
**Extraction hints:** Focus on the express preemption gap and the centralized vs decentralized asymmetry in preemption analysis. **Extraction hints:** Focus on the express preemption gap and the centralized vs decentralized asymmetry in preemption analysis.