Dancing Dead

About Dancing Dead

There are no SCOTUS-prediction market contracts currently on Kalshi but Polymarket lists a 41% probability that the court will accept an event contract case by 31 December.

A hearing before the Supreme Court would be the culmination of what has been the biggest sports betting-related development since PASPA. Perhaps no other issue has united gaming stakeholders from various companies, tribes, states and regulators.

Beginning with the US presidential elections in November 2024, when prediction markets catapulted into mainstream culture, their rise has been undeniable. Kalshi and Polymarket have seen their valuations balloon to $40 billion and $21 billion, respectively, and the majority of the top US bookmakers have scrambled to expand into the prediction space in various forms, either by building their own exchanges, acquiring existing ones or engaging in market-making.

About Dancing Dead

Yahoo Finance has ended its dedicated prediction market integration with Polymarket, cutting short a high-profile partnership less than a year after launch.

The investing and news site announced last week that it halted an arrangement in which it used Polymarket prediction market data for a dedicated hub on the website.

That relationship ended in April, just six months after it started. Yahoo Finance confirmed the end of that agreement to Bloomberg but noted that Polymarket remains an advertising partner.

What is Dancing Dead?

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.