Michael Selig

There's a different model, of course, where the bet is priced based on the house's own decisions and analytics.

And of course, you get paid out, you win, you lose.

If you win too much, you often get kicked out.

With derivatives, we have a very standardized system where you have a contract that allows here for a binary option where you are paid out based on an outcome.

And you can get out of your position.

You can sell it.

If the value of your contract goes up, you can liquidate, get out, recoup some of the costs.

You can hold your position to the end, whatever you want to do.

But we have certain rules around these products.

And they're structured very differently from, for example, gambling.

The underlying asset, I think, is what you're pointing to, right?

You've got a sports event as the underlying to the derivative as opposed to, let's say, pork bellies as the underlying of the derivative.

To us, we're agnostic.

We have a very broad definition of commodity under our statute.

And so we're not picking, okay, these sports products are gambling because they're the underlying sports.

We treat them the same.

The underlying fundamentals of the contract are the same.

the asset at the underlying base is different, but that doesn't mean it's treated differently under our regulatory framework.

It really is no different than I can go and you have a state regulatory regime for insurance.

I can go get an insurance contract in my home state.