> The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody".

This is a seriously tiresome argument. How about this? Feel free to cite how their recent moves will enable them to

1. satisfy regulators that they are not violating the Commodity Exchange Act; 2. satisfy other parts of the government that they are not simply illegal gambling; 3. satisfy the states that are actively suing them RIGHT NOW.

It does not matter that there are friendly people in the administration. The fact is that they were told to wind down their markets and leave. They did not do this. Even if their behavior may become legal in the future, it is currently illegal.

My personal objection is IN ADDITION to the legal problems. My personal opinion is that this business and the people who run it SUCK. There’s no conflating: both things are true. Why do you insist on sticking up for douchebags?