I don't even understand the argument against insider trading on the still uncertain future. Markets create an incentive to bring private information to the public square. Isn't that in the public interest?

On the other hand, there is no restriction on Elected Officials and their families trading on stocks in relative secrecy. Can someone help me out here about what ills we're fighting by banning markets?

This was my favorite of the talks. Here are my thoughts:

• Pratik brought up a few times how he thinks that the prediction market community needs to demonstrate value before it can be accepted. But on the other hand, the lack of acceptance seems to be what is preventing legalization. This seems like a 🐔 / 🥚 problem.

• Manifold is in a unique position as a play-money market, making it easier for it to operate without having to worry about regulatory oversight. Is there a role for Manifold to play in this goal of demonstrating value?

• Pratik mentioned a surprising amount of money was transacted in side bets. How much, exactly, compared to through dedicated websites?

I wish I understood better why the CFTC needs to be involved in some betting markets, but not others. I don't understand how Sportsbooks betting on proposition bets for say, the Superbowl, is any different than betting on whether Trump will call someone by a nickname in a political debate. I would be curious to learn more about why the feds need to get involved. Why can't a sophisiticated state like Nevada or New Jersey take the lead in the political gambling market. I think Pratik is insightful, but he seems to put the onus more on the betting community to change than what can happen in the individual states.