Michael Selig

I can go otherwise go to the federal system and get a derivatives contract that gives similar economic protection risk management to myself as a company or as an individual.

I really don't see any difference there.

There are different regulatory regimes for different products.

We have a federal system for derivatives, and so it does allow for those products to cross state lines and be accessed in places where maybe you couldn't access it otherwise,

With an insurance contract, they typically can't be offered across state lines.

There's different regimes for insurance in each state.

And we've got the same with gambling versus derivatives.

Well, self regulatory organizations like exchanges have the obligation to evaluate the contracts that they're listing to make sure that they meet our standards.

One of those standards, as I mentioned earlier, is not being readily susceptible to manipulation.

Another is our requirement that they have to be not on things like assassination or terrorism,

and so on and so forth, which are all restricted under our statute.

And we as a regulator do have some authority to, when it's in the public interest, allow certain types of contracts.

When you have a contract around a political event that isn't tethered or tied to, for example, an election, that does create a lot of risk that you could back into becoming an assassination market or a terrorism market or a war market.

That's something the exchanges have to think about.

That's not, we're not in the business of going and

rejecting contracts when we believe there's a potential risk, if the exchanges are telling us they believe that these are consistent with our standards.

But we, of course, exercise our enforcement authority where we think exchanges are violating the law.

So it's an important question.

It's one that the exchanges have to think about.

We may have a role in providing guidance there, and that's something I think folks should stay tuned on.