Several sites confirming the ANJ has taken action: https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/french-regulator-block-cryto-operator-polymarket/

https://sbcnews.co.uk/featurednews/2024/12/03/polymarket-france-anj-exit/

@WilliamGunn I’ve had a look at ANJ’s blacklist and Polymarket isn’t there yet

@AlessandroVeneri What do you mean and how is that relevant to the resolution criteria here?

@WilliamGunn My read is that Polymarket has autonomously geo-blocked access for France, but ANJ hasn't formally banned the site (in fact, it is not in the blacklist) nor restricted access to it.

@AlessandroVeneri Is it possible you're wrong? I would be surprised if those articles were just totally making things up when they say ANJ asked for a geo-block & got it.

@WilliamGunn sure, those articles could have misleading reports. It’s a fact though that ANJ hasn’t taken any formal action against Polymarket as of yet

@AlessandroVeneri I'm confused, are they geo-blocked or not?

@WilliamGunn Idk, if they are it is not because the ANJ has put them on the blacklist in any case

@AlessandroVeneri You sound very sure of yourself, but I wonder if it's warranted. I mean, I'm sure they aren't blocking France just for the fun of it.

@WilliamGunn
IMO this does not meet the criteria for a yes resolution, and should resolve No if nothing changes. However it's a bit of a close call - I think that the evidence best supports polymarket voluntarily instituting a block, which they plausibly can end whenever they want to, in response to an investigation by the ANJ (and possibly in return for the ANJ halting their investigation, though I'm less sure of that).

I believe what happened is that ANJ started an investigation and polymarket ~voluntarily agreed to block french users, possibly at the request of the regulators and in return for an investigation being ended, but it was not forced to and it's not clear that it's legally bound to continue banning French users if it changes it's mind.

ANJ website says (translation done by google translate) (adventure one qss is the parent company on polymarket):
> Following various discussions with the ANJ, the company ADVENTURE ONE QSS INC. has decided to implement geoblocking preventing games from being taken from French territory. 

Additionally the ANJ blacklist does not appear to include polymarket (or it's parent company).

Bloomberg article (archive link) says that it paused trades for users in france but that Polymarket said it was proactive on their part:

> Users in France can “continue to access Polymarket for critical information about the events that matter most to them,” but the platform has paused new trades for the time being, a spokesperson for Polymarket said in a statement.

> “We took this step proactively while we continue to engage with stakeholders in the country about our platform and prediction markets more generally,” the statement reads.

So this implies that the regulator didn't make them do so. This is different from what happened in the US, where polymarket was charged by the CFTC and simultaneously settled under an agreement that had them block US users.

@Fay42 I can see where you're coming from, but if I had a business and a regulator told me "your company is doing illegal stuff, if you voluntarily stop, we'll voluntarily pause our investigation", I would probably say I was voluntarily stopping, but it sure wouldn't feel very voluntary. I guess it all depends on how literal-minded you want to be!

@WilliamGunn I think it's not the most clear cut resolve but the most natural interpretation of the market imo is that in order to resolve Yes Polymarket would have to be directly legally compelled to keep in place a ban on users, rather than one where it's doing so to avoid a legal fight. I'd have a different take if Polymarket had made a legally binding agreement to ban users to settle the investigation, as it did with the US. But yeah, hard call, I've sold a good chunk of my No shares.

@Ziddletwix I wouldn't mind a ruling on how this will resolve if no new info comes out, I'm basically betting on how you'll decide this at this point.

@Fay42 I would too. I feel like half my bets are essentially gambles on whether the resolver is a default no or default yes kinda person.

@Fay42 I see! Thanks for flagging this. Honestly, after a first (quick) read, I'm not sure whether or not this should count. Given that uncertainty, I would personally advise not pushing this probability super high or low based on these articles (bc I am not confident either way).

I am unlikely to resolve this soon, because (1) I don't think this is obviously sufficient for a straightforward YES resolution, (2) if this is a tricky case, I would like to give some more time in case additional reporting comes out. There is a large difference between "ANJ told Polymarket 'block french users ASAP or we'll destroy you' and their hand was implicitly forced" and "ANJ began an investigation & Polymarket didn't want to antagonize them so they proactively took this step while the investigation was ongoing but they're waiting for the results". Right now, the Bloomberg article seems to be the clearest source, but I haven't had the chance to look for others.

(and if I'm unsure myself I might ask a mod to chime in for a 2nd opinion)

@WilliamGunn

I can see where you're coming from, but if I had a business and a regulator told me "your company is doing illegal stuff, if you voluntarily stop, we'll voluntarily pause our investigation"

Has ANJ paused its investigation?

Or, to put it another way. If we take Polymarket's statement at face value, I do not think that would be sufficient to resolve YES:

“Users in France can continue to access Polymarket for critical information about the events that matter most to them, but for the time being we’ve hit pause on new trades," a company spokesperson told Decrypt. "We took this step proactively while we continue to engage with stakeholders in the country about our platform and prediction markets more generally.” (source)

"Proactively pausing as they figure things out with regulators" is not the same as the regulators banning/restricting access to the site (it's entirely possible the regulators would conclude their investigation by taking no action and things would go back to normal).

But it is reasonable to skeptical of official statements by the company under investigation. To resolve this I would look to see what credible reporting I could find that gives us any evidence that we should doubt that this was 100% voluntary (& just a temporary measure during the investigation, rather than an action taken under duress/as ordered by the regulators).

@Ziddletwix I appreciate your thoughtfulness here. In my experience, companies don't stop operations in an entire country unless they're pressured pretty strongly and face-saving deals like this appears to be depend on the pressure not being publicly known.

Lol the report seems legit (not saying they'll actually ban it but they are for sure looking into it) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-07/crypto-bets-on-trump-polymarket-examined-by-french-regulator-anj

Imagine being Freddy's tax manager 😂😂😂