Incorporating in Delaware was initially attractive because of usury laws that matter to a small number of business sectors.

The charitable take is that most corporations want to comply with a state's regulations because unintentional compliance violations are painful and expensive, and it is relatively easy to be confident that you are compliant as a Delaware corp.

No. Its because has chancery court which is a court based on equity not a court based on common law.

When I had a C-corp in the 90s for a magazine I was publishing, my dad’s cousin insisted that I should incorporate in Delaware or Nevada. The thing is that because I was operating in California, especially at the small scale that I operated, it did nothing for me at all really. I would still pay California taxes and be subject to California regulations. Mostly it would make a difference if I were sued.

(Obligatory disclaimer that these are ~30-year-old memories of some dumb 20-something’s understanding of the law at the time.)

There’s dodging and then there’s _dodging_. If you are operating in a legal gray area, that’s an unsavory business practice that is, as you say, widespread. Then there’s operating illegally in full view of everybody. I do not personally ascribe to the idea that a thing is OK just because one is not currently being prosecuted. Polymarket (and Kalshi) is bad for the country, their claims to the contrary are highly dubious, and it’s a case where not only are they actually in the wrong, they are quite specifically legally wrong.

> the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious.

Why would it? Choosing the state to incorporate in has very little to do with US federal regulations. If the US wants to come after your company for some reason, they file in federal court, and the state you're incorporated in is irrelevant.

When incorporating, you choose the state based on its business-related laws and how they might apply to your company. You choose based on the experience of their judicial system in handling business matters. You might choose because there are a ton of other businesses incorporated in that state, and that's created a lot of court cases and a lot of precedent that can give your own legal team more confidence in how different sorts of legal challenge might play out.

If you were trying to avoid US federal regulations, you might incorporate in Delaware for the simple reason that Delaware is a safe default, given how common it is for companies to incorporate there. Incorporating in an unusual state could raise an eyebrow here or there. But ultimately it's not going to matter all that much. And even if it's true that a federal-regulations-skirting company would have a measurable benefit to incorporating in Delaware, there's no reason to believe that lots of companies incorporated in Delaware are trying to skirt federal regulations. That's just an unfounded assertion.

As an aside, it's not true that every company wants to decrease its regulatory burden. Once a company gets large enough, lobbying for extra regulation can be a barrier to entry for possible competitors. Also consider that "reducing regulatory burden" doesn't necessarily mean doing something illegal. In the case of Polymarket, they probably are, but plenty of other companies find ways to reduce their regulatory compliance needs in perfectly legal ways.

>the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious

huh? you aren't making a coherent argument. registering in any US state you are still subject to the same federal regulations, Delaware is not different, it offers no shelter from federal regulations.

in fact, if it is not your primary state of operation, then it subjects you to federal regulations for interstate commerce where you might not otherwise be.

Do you think "housing a business inside a shell company" is not editorializing when referring (apparently) to running a company that has a registered agent in a normal, permissive jurisdiction like Panama, Ireland, or Delaware?

For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.

You haven't heard their definition yet.

If the only shell(s) for a business are in a completely different jurisdiction with no connection whatsoever to any of the humans involved in operating the organization... yes. It's an outrageous way to escape the force of the law that has been rubber stamped by corrupt politicians.

Do the sketchy things of poor people affect as much other people as the sketchy of rich?

Who more often jail time for sketchy things? Poor or rich?