Wild Yield

What is Wild Yield?

Its failure also leaves unresolved disputes over prediction markets and state and tribal gaming authorities, outside a comprehensive congressional framework. Those issues took on new significance during Senate floor debate over the bill, as concerns about federal commodities oversight extended to markets typically regulated at the state or tribal level. 

The latest filing is an early step in filling some of that regulatory gap for the CFTC. The agency can issue regulations under its current statutory authority, but those regulations would not necessarily be as permanent as legislation passed by Congress. 

For now, the important news is that the CFTC has officially started the administrative process. Only once the rulemaking progresses and the underlying proposal is available for public review will the extent of its eventual crypto framework become clear.

What is Wild Yield?

Online gambling more broadly remains illegal, with no sign of legalisation in either the short or long term. If anything, the government appears to be moving further away from the activity, and is actively considering website blocking to prevent illegal gambling in the country.

But through its love of pachinko, social gaming in Japan offers a strikingly different story.

Across some 8,000 pachinko parlours in Japan, machines filled with metallic balls fill expansive spaces, similar to slot machines on a casino floor. Winning balls are tallied and exchanged for non-cash prizes at the parlour, which can then be taken to nearby third-party exchange outlets for cash.

What is Wild Yield?

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.”