Royal Secrets

How to play Royal Secrets

Entering iGaming from the outside was nerve-racking, but it has actually turned out to be my biggest advantage. I have no preconceived ideas about how things should be done, and I’m not playing anybody else’s rulebook.

I believe that the industry needs more outside voices. People who come in and look at problems from a different perspective, and who are not constantly worrying about past mistakes.

Technology, especially AI, is impacting all industries, and the more we can learn from one another, the better.

About Royal Secrets

The web of lawsuits and court rulings involving prediction markets has greatly complicated the issue of jurisdiction. Kalshi has been forced to limit trading in multiple states, most notably Nevada, and the CFTC has gone to unprecedented lengths to protect its licencees. This includes suing nine states directly and issuing emergency orders to reject state mandates.

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig is currently the lone sitting commissioner for an agency that traditionally features a bipartisan group of five. Selig has repeatedly defended both the legitimacy of prediction markets as financial assets and the role of the CFTC in overseeing them. The CFTC under his direction has embarked on a series of rule proposals regarding prediction markets, although detractors argue that the proposed changes still allow for sports contracts and in some ways could be seen as a tightening of the belt to make a Supreme Court review look more favourable.

“It’s not a question of whether innovations like blockchain, artificial intelligence, and prediction markets will transform our markets. It’s a question of where this innovation will take place and who will write the rules,” Selig said during a meeting of the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee on 20 August, which featured the CEOs of Kalshi, Polymarket, DraftKings, CME Group and more.

How to play Royal Secrets

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.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”