The warning came from the unlikeliest corner of the arena. Jason Robins — the CEO of DraftKings, the exact same company whose entire business model runs on convincing you that a running back will clear 85.5 rushing yards on a Thursday night — stood up and told the prediction market industry to stay the hell away from earnings calls.
Not a crypto native. Not a DAO delegate. Not a Polymarket degen with a profile picture of a laser-eyed bull. A regulated gambling executive, a man whose empire is built on licensed sportsbooks and fantasy contests, publicly drawing a line in the sand against event contracts on corporate speech.
That's chaos dressed in a suit.
And it's exactly the kind of signal most on-chain analysts are going to miss, because it doesn't show up in a mempool. It doesn't move the TVL chart. It's a sentence spoken in an interview or a conference stage somewhere, and within hours it's a trading signal for an entire category of DeFi that most people still don't take seriously.
Here's the thing. Robins didn't have to say anything. DraftKings operates in the regulated gambling lane, where the CFTC and state gaming commissions already have their hooks in everything. He could have let the prediction market complex keep expanding into sports, into politics, into celebrity death pools and asteroid strikes and all the other chaos instruments that crypto keeps inventing. But he chose to speak up specifically about earnings calls. Why?
Because that's the one market that scares the establishment. And when the establishment gets scared, it starts calling for rules.
Let's get into the mechanics. Let's talk about what happens when a prediction market tries to settle a bet on whether a CEO says the word "challenging" during a quarterly earnings call. Because that is the real frontier the industry is racing toward, and the DraftKings CEO just threw a regulatory grenade at it.
The Context: How We Got Here
Before we dissect the warning, we need to establish the landscape. Prediction markets are not new. The concept dates back to the 1990s with the Iowa Electronic Markets, rolling forward through Intrade's collapse in 2013, and into the crypto era that started with Augur's 2014 white paper and its 2018 mainnet launch. For years, the category was a joke — thin order books, clunky UX, and a user base that was basically the same 5,000 crypto nerds rotating through the same markets.
Then the 2024 US election happened.
Polymarket processed over $3 billion in volume on its 2024 election markets. A French trader with a massive long on Trump became a mainstream news story. Kalshi — the CFTC-regulated exchange — fought a legendary court battle to list congressional control markets, winning a district court ruling that forced the regulators to back off. The narrative flipped from "prediction markets are a curiosity" to "prediction markets are the future of forecasting."
And once the infrastructure proved it could handle political mega-events, the logical next step was expansion. Sports markets came first — because sports have clean, objective outcomes and a built-in gambling culture. Then macro events: Fed rate decisions, CPI prints, jobs numbers. Then conflict events, energy prices, celebrity arcs.
The frontier after that? Corporate micro-events. Specifically, the things that happen inside the black box of a quarterly earnings call.
That's what DraftKings' CEO is warning against. During the earnings season grind — the four weeks every quarter when hundreds of companies hold conference calls to discuss results — an army of traders, analysts, and bots parse the language of management for clues. Did the CFO say "headwind" or "tailwind"? Did the CEO dodge a direct question about guidance? Did someone use the phrase "macro uncertainty" as a crutch?
Imagine if all of that parsing became directly tradeable. Not as a proxy via the stock price, but as a binary market: "Will the CEO say 'supply chain' at least three times during the Q2 call?" "Will management use the word 'challenging' more than 'strong'?" "Does the tone of the prepared remarks lean bullish or bearish relative to the prior quarter?"
From a pure liquidity standpoint, that's a dream. Earnings calls are scheduled, recurring, high-attention events. They're perfect for event contracts. They have a defined endpoint, a measurable outcome, and a massive audience of people who already care about the underlying company.
From a governance standpoint, it's a nightmare. And Robins just said the quiet part out loud.
Core Insight One: The Oracle Problem Gets Personal
Here's where my nine years of watching this industry tells me the real battle is being fought. Prediction markets have one structural vulnerability that no amount of UI polish or marketing spin can fix: the oracle. The settlement mechanism. The thing that decides, at the end of the contract, who won and who lost.
For sports, it's easy. The scoreboard is the oracle. The NBA box score, the NFL official stats, the final whistle — these are objective, verifiable facts that multiple independent sources publish within seconds. Yes, there have been glitches — the infamous ESPN score correction, the occasional stat change that flips a prop bet after the fact — but for the most part, sports are oracle-clean.
For elections, it's slightly less clean but still manageable. Official results, certified counts, AP calls, and in the rare case of a contested race, a long arbitration process. The 2000 Bush v. Gore scenario is the boogeyman, but in practice, election markets settle fine because there's an authoritative chain of custody for the outcome.
Now try to build an oracle for this statement: "did the CEO sound confident about next quarter?"
That's not a fact. That's a vibe. And vibes are exactly what my corner of the ecosystem trades on — but vibes are miserable things to settle in a smart contract.
The DraftKings CEO's warning touches on this even if he'd never use the vocabulary. "Prediction markets on earnings calls could weaken corporate transparency," is what the reporting surfaced. What that actually means in technical terms: the very act of making subjective judgments about management speech into binary settlement events creates an incentive to litigate every word. And when every word becomes a financial contract, every word becomes a liability.
Let me lay out the three technical obstacles that any project building earnings-call event contracts is going to hit, because I've watched this play out in adjacent categories over and over again.
Obstacle One: The Expression Variant Problem
A CEO almost never says exactly the phrase a market contract specified. The market question is "Will the CEO use the exact words 'double digit growth'?" And the CEO, in the actual call, says, "We expect to deliver double-digit growth in the second half." Wait — hyphenated. Is that the same? The contract says "double digit growth" without a hyphen, and what got transcribed into the official earnings call transcript says "double-digit growth" with a hyphen. The token is a different string. The semantic meaning is identical. So how does the oracle rule?
If the contract is too strict, the liquidity dies. Nobody wants to trade a market where a stray hyphen destroys the position. If the contract is too loose, the settlement becomes subjective. What counts as a synonym? "Strong growth" — is that the same as "robust growth"? "Meaningful momentum" — who decides if the CEO's phrase qualifies?
This is the expression variant problem, and it's not theoretical. I've seen it in real-time social sentiment markets, in NFT floor price event bets, in crypto-specific prediction markets where project developers deliberately used ambiguous language to confound settlement. It's the single fastest way to turn a prediction market into a dispute factory.
Obstacle Two: The Adjudication Attack Vector
Suppose you build a UMA-style optimistic oracle or a community-vote mechanism to resolve ambiguous earnings language. The logic is sound on paper: token holders stake and vote on the correct outcome; disputes escalate to a higher arbitration layer; repeat offenders get slashed. That's how the optimistic oracle works in DeFi, and it works okay for objective facts.
But earnings calls are not objective facts. They're natural language. And when the market is big enough, the financial incentive to corrupt the oracle becomes bigger than the stake at risk. An arbitration attack — where a whale accumulates a large position in a contract, then shoves the settlement in their direction through vote buying or stake concentration — becomes not just possible but mathematically attractive.
Polymarket solves this by centralizing the oracle. The platform's UMA integration is nominally decentralized, but in practice the team curates which markets exist and leans on canonical sources for settlement. That's fine for elections and Fed decisions. It's not fine for "did the CEO say the thing?" because there is no canonical source for conversational speech. Even the official transcript published by the company itself can be edited. Even the SEC-filed version can differ from the live audio. Which one settles the contract?
Obstacle Three: The Transcription Fragility
Automatic speech recognition is dramatically better than it was five years ago. But earnings calls feature crowded audio, overlapping speakers, industry jargon, and executives with accents speaking rapidly from prepared remarks. A single ASR error — "challenging" becomes "challenging condition," or worse, a critical word gets dropped entirely — can flip millions of dollars in settlement.
Humans transcribe these calls too, and humans make errors. I've personally reviewed earnings call transcripts for trading signals where the official transcript botched a full sentence of forward guidance. If an oracle relies on the transcript to settle a binary contract, the margin of error is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
The core truth buried inside the DraftKings CEO's warning is this: prediction markets on earnings calls aren't technically impossible to build, but they are practically impossible to settle in a way that both sides of the trade accept as fair.
The oracle won't read the room. The oracle will read a malformed transcript, and that's where the market's fragile trust goes to die.
Core Insight Two: The Reg-FD Minefield
The DraftKings CEO's comments hit at a regulatory intersection that most crypto participants don't understand. Earnings calls sit inside a dense web of securities law, specifically Regulation Fair Disclosure — Regulation FD — enforced by the SEC. The rule was created in 2000 to stop selective disclosure of material information to privileged investors and analysts. It requires that if a company discloses material non-public information to some parties, it must publicly disclose that information to everyone at the same time.
Earnings calls exist in this weird liminal space. They are public, but they're also highly scripted. Companies carefully prepare remarks to avoid any forward-looking statement that could create securities liability. Legal counsel reviews the slides. IR teams rehearse the Q&A. What gets said on an earnings call is curated within an inch of its life.
Now add prediction markets to the mix.
If a prediction market contract asks "will the CEO explicitly raise full-year guidance?" — and someone with early access to material information bets accordingly — you've created a mechanism for front-running corporate disclosures. Reg-FD says everyone gets information at the same time. A prediction market that incentivizes early access to earnings call content — even a casual remark in a pre-call meeting, even a leaked draft of the prepared remarks — becomes a vehicle for insider trading.
The DraftKings CEO is not a securities lawyer. But he runs a heavily regulated gambling company, and he reads the room. His warning is the gambling industry's way of saying: we know what happens when unregulated markets collide with regulated disclosures. It's not a technology problem. It's a liability problem.
Here's the nuance the crypto Twitter discourse will miss. The SEC takes a dim view of event contracts on securities-related outcomes. When Kalshi tried to list markets on government shutdowns and congressional control, the CFTC fought them. When Polymarket ran election markets, the CFTC paid close attention. The moment prediction markets start touching securities disclosure — even via linguistic bets on earnings calls — the SEC's jurisdiction becomes unavoidable. And the SEC is not the CFTC. The SEC does not negotiate; it files.
So the DraftKings CEO's warning functions as early warning radar for something much bigger. The earnings-call prediction market isn't just a product risk. It's a jurisdictional trigger. It's the one bet that drags every other prediction market into securities law territory by association.
Core Insight Three: The DraftKings Conflict Nobody's Talking About
Let's be honest about who Jason Robins is and what his company does. DraftKings makes money when people gamble. It's a sportsbook. It's licensed. It pays gaming taxes. It has compliance teams and responsible-gambling programs because regulators demand them. It fought for years to be treated as legally legitimate, transitioning from daily fantasy sports to full sports betting after the Supreme Court struck down PASPA in 2018.
DraftKings is the regulatory darling of the sports betting world. And prediction markets — particularly crypto-native, permissionless ones — are the unlicensed competition.
When Robins warns against prediction market wagers on earnings calls, he's doing two things at once. The first is a genuine governance concern, because the guy does have a point about transparency. The second is competitive positioning. Every dollar that flows into a prediction market on an earnings call is a dollar that's not flowing into a regulated gambling product. Every event contract Polymarket lists is a financial instrument DraftKings can't touch without a CFTC license and a compliance nightmare.
The warning is about investor protection on the surface. Underneath, it's a turf battle. DraftKings wants prediction markets siloed into sport, politics, and macro. The one territory regulated gambling can't easily enter — because interactive gambling on securities-related events is legally radioactive — is the corporate earnings call. So the strategic move is to poison the well publicly. Frame earnings-call betting as unethical, as a transparency killer, as the line that cannot be crossed.
Will it work?
Historical precedent suggests no. The prediction market complex has a consistent pattern of ignoring moral appeals until regulators physically intervene. Polymarket kept running unlicensed markets and paid the price with a $1.4 million CFTC settlement. Kalshi fought its court battle and won. The behavioral pattern is always the same: build first, ask for forgiveness later, and only stop when the regulator's boot is actually on the neck.
What the CEO's warning does do is accelerate the clarity timeline. It puts the question in front of regulators: a licensed operator is publicly saying that prediction markets on corporate speech threaten market integrity. Regulators love cover like that. It gives them political space to act in a way that looks like protecting retail rather than suppressing innovation.
You want to know why DraftKings' CEO spoke up? The same reason any incumbent speaks up. It's not about the customers. It's about the chokehold on the distribution. If prediction markets expand into earning season, the entire sports-betting industry loses its narrative moat — the claim that regulated wagering is the responsible way to express a view on an event. A crypto-native event contract on a CEO's tone is a direct challenge to that narrative.
The loudest objections to new markets aren't moral. They're strategic. Social capital outpaced code in the ape arcade, and the gambling establishment is worried it's about to happen in the corporate arena too.
Core Insight Four: The Word-By-Word Trend Is Real
Let me tell you what the DraftKings CEO's warning accidentally confirms: the word-by-word trading thesis is real. Nobody publicly warns against a hypothetical. If earnings-call prediction markets were a purely speculative fantasy with zero traction, Robins would have no reason to burn a single sentence on them. The fact that he's spoken publicly means the industry is already circling this space.
I've watched this happen before. In 2021, when Bored Ape Yacht Club was minting and the PFP craze was exploding, the first question every serious trader asked was not "does this art look good?" It was "can I trade the social signal around the mint faster than the market price adjusts?" That social arbitrage became a whole cottage industry — watchers monitoring Discord energy, Twitter Spaces sentiment, collection floor charts in real-time. The NFT markets were trading vibes before the on-chain data could confirm the trend.
Prediction markets on earnings calls are the same pattern, applied to the most information-rich recurring event in finance. The earnings call is a choreographed theater, but traders have developed an entire analytic vocabulary for reading between the lines. Tone detectors. Word frequency counts. First-person pronoun usage. Filled-pause counts. We're already doing quantitative linguistic analysis on earnings calls; the only missing piece is a liquid market to express the view.
The platform that cracks that market survives the regulatory storm. The platform that waits for permission goes extinct. That's the sprint perspective. That's how this industry works.
But here's what Robins — the regulated incumbent — understands better than the crypto side: if the linguistic event market balloons before the oracle design matures, the resulting settlement disputes will create the regulatory ammunition to kill the entire category. Every contested word, every botched transcript, every angry trader who loses a $50,000 contract because the ASR algorithm dropped the word "not" — that's a headline ripe for a regulator's clipboard.
And that's the thing about this industry that I keep trying to tell people. Speed is the only metric that survived the crash. But speed without settlement integrity is not speed. It's just a faster way to get to the lawsuit.
Core Insight Five: What A Working Oracle Would Look Like
So what would actually need to happen for earnings-call prediction markets to function without collapsing into chaos? Based on my experience watching both the optimism and the failures of event-based DeFi, the solution is a layered oracle stack. Not a single source, not a DAO vote over an ambiguous word.
First, the audio layer. The primary source should be the raw recording of the earnings call itself, stored immutably — transcoded and hashed on Arweave or IPFS with a permanent anchor to the settlement contract. No dependency on a third-party transcript that can be edited. The smart contract settles against the audio, not the transcript.
Second, the multi-model agreement layer. At least three independent ASR models — from different vendors, ideally with different training data — transcribe the audio. If all three agree on the target phrase, settlement is automatic. If they diverge, the contract enters a dispute protocol.
Third, the human escalation layer. Divergence triggers human review by a curated adjudication panel — not a token-holder mob, because token-holder mobs are vulnerable to vote-buying, but a professionally vetted panel with financial incentives to get it right and reputational slashing if they fail. Think of it as a specialized jury for language.
Fourth, the phrase-normalization layer. The contract must predefine an extensive semantic equivalence map. The market question should be framed not as "will the CEO say X" but as "does the CEO's language match the growth-positive pattern," with the desired patterns pre-authorized by the market creator. This kills the expression variant problem at the design stage.
Fifth, the time-lock for regulatory arbitrage. The contract should include a settlement delay — say 24 hours after the call — to allow for transcript corrections, company clarifications, and any SEC filings that might supersede the live interpretation. This cooling-off period makes insider-trading attacks and panic settlement harder.
Is this architecture expensive to build? Absolutely. Is it slower than shipping a naive binary market on an earnings call in one afternoon? Yes. Does it solve the DraftKings CEO's transparency concern? Partially. But it's the only architecture I've seen that can survive contact with a regulator armed with a subpoena.
Reading the room while the order book burns is a skill. Building the oracle before the order book burns is a business. And the project that builds this first owns the category.
The Contrarian Angle: What Robins Got Wrong
Here's the part of this story most outlets will skip. The DraftKings CEO warned that prediction markets on earnings calls could weaken corporate transparency. But the inverse is just as plausible: prediction markets on earnings calls could force public companies to be more transparent, not less.
Think about it from the CEO's perspective. If every ambiguous phrase in my earnings call becomes a settlement event for a financial contract, I have a direct financial incentive to speak more clearly. To stop using vague strategic jargon. To stop hiding behind phrases like "significant headwinds" when I mean "we missed the quarter and we're scared." The prediction market doesn't just price the outcome of the call; it prices the quality of the speech itself.
That's the deeper layer of the word-by-word trading trend. When traders can express a position on management's language, management's language becomes more disciplined. Corporate speech becomes a market-determined quality metric. And that is not the same as a decline in transparency. It's an upgrade in accountability.
What Robins is actually protecting is the ability of companies to control their own narrative without being second-guessed by liquid markets in real time. With prediction markets, a CEO's carefully crafted, lawyer-approved ambiguity becomes instantly attackable. The market disambiguates what management wants to keep vague. And the corporate world hates being disambiguated.
Let me be clear: I don't think the DraftKings CEO is lying. I think he's wrong. He's looking at this through the lens of a regulated incumbent who believes the orderly world of licensed gambling and compliance is superior to the chaos of open markets. But the history of this industry — my industry — is that open markets with clear settlement rules produce better information than closed, choreographed theater.
Corporations already manipulate their earnings calls with surgical care. The prepared remarks are written by committee. The Q&A is scripted against a list of anticipated queries. The result is a maximum-entropy linguistic fog. Prediction markets on the fog wouldn't destroy transparency; they'd make the fog tradable and force speakers to either deepen the fog or burn it off. Either way, the market determines the cost of corporate vagueness.
That's a feature, not a bug. And it's why the warning against prediction markets on earnings calls deserves the opposite response from what the DraftKings CEO wants.
Still, the man has one unbeatable point on his side: the regulators. The tragedy of the situation is that the most interesting and innovative expansion of prediction markets — the one that could genuinely improve corporate accountability — is the one most likely to be banned before it matures. Speed is the only metric that survived the crash, but regulation is the metric that never enters the blockchain.
The Regulatory Endgame
Let's map the outcomes. Three scenarios tell the story of where earnings-call prediction markets go from here.
Scenario one: the CFTC and SEC issue joint guidance within the next 12 months declaring that event contracts referencing the content or language of earnings calls are prohibited. Kalshi, which has to follow CFTC rules, is dead in the water on this product. Polymarket geoblocks US users anyway but finds a way into global markets with offshore settlement. The illegal-ish market persists as a gray zone, matching the pattern of the current election market structure. Volume stays small. The DraftKings CEO's warning wins the regulatory battle, and the prediction market industry grinds along on sports and macro.
Scenario two: Kalshi files to list earnings-call language contracts and wins in court the way it won the congressional control case. The CFTC fights, loses, and the entire prediction market industry suddenly has a legal green light to touch corporate speech. DraftKings and the other regulated sportsbooks panic. They either start acquiring prediction market infrastructure or they lobby Congress for new legislation. The tension becomes a political fight about who controls the future of speculative intelligence. And in this scenario, the oracle design becomes the primary battlefield — not the listing, but the settlement mechanism.
Scenario three: the darkest one. A prediction market launches earnings-call language contracts, a settlement dispute goes viral, a retail trader loses a massive position over a transcription error, and the resulting congressional hearing produces sweeping restrictions on all event contracts. The entire category gets kneecapped. This is the scenario the DraftKings CEO is actively hoping for, because it sanitizes his regulated gambling product relative to the crypto chaos. Every botched settlement makes his point for him.
Here's where I land after nine years of reading this industry's tea leaves. The DraftKings CEO's warning is not a reason to abandon the earnings-call prediction market thesis. It's a reason to demand better oracle architecture before the market launches. The sprint doesn't end when the block confirms. It ends when settlement is final. And settlement is the place where this entire category will win or lose.
The Blind Spot: The Human Cost of Linguistic Markets
As someone who spent the 2022 wreckage organizing support communities and livestreams for traumatized traders, I can't write about this without pointing out the human dimension. Prediction markets on earnings calls aren't just a technical and regulatory problem. They're a psychological pressure cooker.
The people who trade earnings-call language markets will be the same people who already have an edge in attention and speed. They will be algorithmic. They will parse transcripts in milliseconds and dominate liquidity. The retail trader who thinks they're participating in a beautiful epistemic experiment will, in reality, be the exit liquidity for the quants. And when they lose, they'll lose fast — because binary language markets on a one-hour call settle within days, and the decision window is an instant.
I remember sitting with traders during the 2022 crash, watching people destroy their savings on leveraged bets they didn't fully understand. The mechanism this time is different but the psychology is the same. Speed creates an adrenaline loop. The event contract adds the adrenaline of live sport to the stress of earning a paycheck. Put that in a daily recurring calendar across every earnings season, and you've built a casino that never closes.
The DraftKings CEO's warning about "weakening corporate transparency" is the intellectual argument. But the emotional argument is the one that will actually move regulators: the image of ordinary retail investors gambling on whether a CEO says "headwind" while their families watch the order book bleed. Regulators are not moved by technical papers. They are moved by human tragedy headlines.
I'm not calling for a ban. I'm calling for the market designers to bake in humane constraints. Position limits on language event contracts. Cooling-off periods before re-entry. Mandatory clarity warnings about settlement risk on transcript-dependent markets. These are not anti-innovation measures; they're the reason the category survives long enough for the actual innovation — better oracles — to emerge.
Liquidity flows like adrenaline, not like water. And adrenaline goes to the head. The best architecture in the world won't help a trader who can't afford the position they're taking on a twelve-word phrase spoken at 140 words per minute by a CEO who's reading from a teleprompter.
The Market Signals To Watch
Let me give you the next-watch list, because the DraftKings CEO warning is not an endpoint. It's a starting gun.
First: watch Kalshi's filings. If they start showing earnings-call language contracts in their queue, the regulated path is underway. Kalshi's legal playbook from the congressional control case is precedent, and their attorneys already know how to frame event contracts as harmless information markets.
Second: watch Polymarket's offshore expansion. The platform has been aggressively courting non-US volume, and the earnings-call market is the kind of product that works beautifully in low-regulatory jurisdictions. If you see a spate of earnings-language markets on Polymarket during the next earnings season, it means the crypto-native side has decided to move without waiting.
Third: watch the oracle infrastructure. Projects building natural language oracles — voice-to-text verification, transcript normalizers, semantic equivalence maps — will start to raise funding and ship public testnets. The DraftKings CEO just handed them a marketing gift: "the guy running the authorized gambling monopoly is afraid of our oracle."
Fourth: watch the SEC's enforcement docket. Any actions against companies for selective disclosure in the context of prediction market activity would be a canary in the coal mine. If the SEC starts asking questions about earnings call language trading, the entire space freezes overnight.
Fifth: watch the corporate reaction. If any company starts issuing a formal policy treating prediction market bets on their earnings call as a violation of their disclosure protocol, that's an admission of significance. No one issues a policy against a non-threat.
The Final Word-By-Word Takeaway
Here's what the DraftKings CEO's warning really tells us, stripped of the suits and the regulatory theater. The prediction market industry is no longer a toy. It's the most efficient mechanism yet invented for turning any event, any phrase, any whisper into a liquid, priceable, tradeable asset. Sports. Elections. War. Now corporate speech. There is no frontier left that isn't a market cycle waiting to happen.
The warning is not a rejection of that future. It's a confirmation — from the regulated establishment — that the future is here. If the man whose business is betting on touchdowns is spending time thinking about bets on earnings calls, the game has already changed.
The only question left is who gets to settle the last word. The regulators. The oracles. Or the platform first to build a language oracle that can read the room without burning the order book.
My bet, after everything I've survived in this industry — the forks, the crashes, the NFT bubbles, the exchange blow-ups — is on the oracles. Speed is the only metric that survived the crash, but accuracy is the only metric that survives settlement.
Arbitrage isn't just reading the room. It's knowing what the room will agree on when the tape stops and the judges start asking questions. And the room hasn't agreed on a single thing about corporate speech yet.
So the next time a CEO tells you a prediction market is dangerous, don't hear a warning. Hear an invitation. The incumbents are scared, the frontier is open, and the market exists the moment the oracle stops lying.
The sprint doesn't end when the block confirms. It never ends. It just changes rooms — and right now, the room is full of people who are about to discover what the CEO of their favorite company really sounds like when hundreds of millions of dollars are listening to every word.
That's a market I want to be in. Not because it's clean. Because it's real.
And the DraftKings CEO's warning is the clearest real-time confirmation we've had that the word-by-word floor is already being priced in.