Physical delivery once legally distinguished futures trading from gambling.

Evidence

It remained the case that, in the words of judge George H. Painter in 1976, “the possibility of delivery on the exchange is the single element distinguishing futures trading from wagering” (Tamarkin 1993, p. 172). So an index future that could be settled only in cash was still illegal. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 761

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the legal definitional barrier: the distinguishing feature of futures vs. wagering was physical delivery, making cash-settled index futures illegal.
• XREF: connects to: Futures trading achieved unprecedented scale in nineteenth-century Chicago. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 68; Physical-delivery possibility, not actual delivery, marked legal futures off from gambling. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 639; Whether futures contracts count as wagers determined whether they were illegal. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 638 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Cash-settled derivatives were legally classed as gambling in the US until the 1980s #qualifies (0.85) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1134
• Cash-settled index futures were barred by legal logic until decades into the century #qualifies (0.85) — Donald MacKenzie & Yuval Millo, Constructing a Market, Performing Theory, 58