Doesn’t this seem like an attempt to legalize and monetize access to insider information? What do you think?
It does not seem like you or most users here know even what is insider information. I've talked about the illusion of "understanding" words because they look simple, and this is a laziness shortcut that many people will take whereas they actually don't understand what most words mean. In most countries of the world, insider information has a very specific meaning: it would be material disclosure of non-public information that is obtained through a breach of duty or other prohibited means.
Simply receiving information a few seconds before others does not automatically meet that definition.
Details are still pending so there is some room for speculation and we will see exactly in practice what it is, but from what it seems now this is more like low-latency news feed which is not a new concept. This is common in financial markets where entities will pay for speed, exchanges, news organizations, companies even spend on fiber-optic infrastructure for millisecond advantages. So while selling early access to information is common in financial markets it can be sometimes controversial. In the case of a public official monetizing this, it would be a grey area in terms of ethics and policy. Whether it is illegal insider information or a legal low-latency news feed will depend whether any securities or ethics rules are implicated. Therefore, wait
before you judge it as something negative.That is totally contrary to the principle of
net neutrality, that it was a win that was already won a decade ago, and that from what it seems now those who are against said right are back to the charge. If this is approved, it opens the door not only to a clear advantage in prediction markets for those who have more means, but also to an inequality in access to information whose only result will be to further widen the gap between those who can afford to pay the price and those who cannot.
Net neutrality has literally nothing to do with this, stop hallucinating with bullshit.
I’m going to have to disagree
We can even compare our interpretations of these words, as well as how we use them
For me, insider information is accurate, specific, and unpublished confidential information. It reaches people not just a second earlier, but significantly earlier, so that they have enough time to prepare thoroughly and take advantage of this information.
I might add that insider information often isn’t used to make money but rather to harm a competitor-something I’ve witnessed firsthand and even participated in while searching for that insider.
I’d love to hear your take on this, especially if it shows that my view is far from reality
When it comes to Trump and his new "project", everything fits together here! Over the course of weeks and months, critically important information may emerge-information that, for example, has already been approved but hasn’t yet been implemented or made public. The passage of new laws, military operations, and the like are examples of processes that take a long time to prepare and may remain confidential until the very last moment-which gives a huge advantage to those who receive this information well in advance! This is exactly what Trump intends to capitalize on by leveraging his position
You can't just disagree and make your own definition of "insider information", you are trying to use it in a colloquial sense whereas I gave you the legal meaning of what it is. The definition is clear and so are its implications, any subjective definitions of it have no relevance at all. And since people often talk about it in the context of legality and corruption, the only definition that matters is the legal definition.
What you are describing here is just accurate non-public information, and that is not insider information in the legal sense. To be specific: "
insider information generally refers to material, non-public information obtained through a breach of fiduciary duty, a relationship of trust, or another prohibited means, particularly in relation to securities markets".
So whether this information is confidential or not, or whether it reaches someone faster than others it is not sufficient to make it insider information -- actually,
all information reaches some people faster than others. Literally all information that has every existed and will exist.
The examples with the length of time that you provide actually prove my point and where your comparison breaks down. Think about it rather simply. If something as significant as "Trump will declare war on X in Y months" was shared with hundreds or thousands of paying subscribers, it would be impossible to keep it confidential for more than a very short amount of time. The information would spread like crazy, intentionally and unintentionally. The more people are involved, the less plausible it becomes that it remains exclusive for any amount of time.
So a network with hundreds or thousands of subscribers is the opposite of a traditional insider trading scheme, which depends on information remaining tightly controlled among a very small number of people -- the exact opposite of what Trump is doing. Furthermore, any kind of long-term insider trading scheme does not really work as the material loses its value as more people become aware of it. This is why actual insider trading involves limited number of entities acting before the information reaches the market, not thousands of subscribers sitting on some secret for weeks or even months.
As I said, what he is doing here most closely resembles a
low-latency subscriber-only news feed -- not an insider trading network. This is completely legal, and common in financial markets. Just because you don't have experience with it, that does not mean that this is something new, corrupt, wrong, insider trading or whatever else other people will come up with.
