When the court asks what the customer actually saw, a reconstruction is not the record.

In the Massachusetts Scanlon promotion case, the court declined to end the case before trial in part because the evidence of what specific disclosures a customer was shown consisted of after-the-fact recreations. A recreation is a best effort to rebuild the past. It is not the same thing as an exact, signed snapshot captured at the moment the screen was rendered.

This page is a courtesy technical demonstration for DraftKings legal and compliance leaders. It shows how Hive can sit alongside a platform as a sidecar and, at the moment a disclosure is rendered or a control runs, make an independent, signed snapshot that anyone can check offline. It never places a wager, sets a line, or decides eligibility. It does not judge. The snapshot proves what was shown and when. It does not decide legality and does not guarantee compliance.

Three simple states

Where a disclosure record is now, where a signed snapshot takes it, and what stays yours.

Capture the exact offer a customer saw, at the moment of rendering

A customer opens a promotion and sees an offer with its terms. This demo captures the exact rendered offer, the offer version and rule version, a one-way hash of the terms text, the acknowledgment state, and the timestamp, then seals them into a signed receipt. Change one character of the offer after signing and the seal breaks. This is a direct, evidence-grade answer to the exact question in Scanlon: what did this customer see, and when. Nothing here is real DraftKings or user data. It is synthetic, made to show how the sidecar works. Hive never decides what to show a customer.

Self-exclusion, eligibility, and the wager attempt, sealed as one chain

New Jersey has previously penalized self-exclusion enforcement failures, and DraftKings' own annual report flags reliance on third-party geolocation and identity vendors as a structural risk. This demo runs a normal account-control path: a self-exclusion check, a geolocation and eligibility state, a wager attempt, the result, and a signed receipt binding all of it. Change the self-exclusion result after signing and the check refuses it. All values are synthetic.

Which odds, which formula, and what the payout was

In December 2025 the Massachusetts Gaming Commission ordered a $934,000 payout after a trading error miscalculated parlay odds and settlements, and account-closure and payout disputes recur in consumer litigation. This demo binds the odds version, the payout formula, the inputs, the calculation, and the payout result into one signed receipt, so whether a settlement figure was a contemporaneous calculation or a later change is a matter of record. Change an input after signing and the seal breaks. All values are synthetic.

Who touched a line, with what purpose and approval

A 2026 Nevada matter involves two former DraftKings sports traders. That investigation is ongoing, one person has pleaded not guilty, and DraftKings states the conduct did not occur on its platform, that its internal review found no evidence its internal information was misused, and that no customers were affected. Independent of any of that, the evidentiary question is general: for one line adjustment, can a firm show the access purpose, the role, the change, the approval state, and a signed action receipt. This demo signs exactly that. All identities and lines below are synthetic.

From detection to submission, as one signed bundle

Several Massachusetts and New Jersey matters note that DraftKings self-reported the issues, and regulators appear to credit self-reporting favorably. This demo takes a synthetic self-report lifecycle, from internal detection through review to regulator submission, seals each step with its timestamp, and rolls them into one downloadable evidence bundle. It substantiates a self-reporting timeline without asserting the underlying conduct was compliant. All values are synthetic.

Which jurisdiction rule governed an event contract, and when it took effect

DraftKings' FY2025 annual report discloses event contracts and prediction markets as a live legal risk, and the federal-preemption question is unresolved and moving through the courts. This is an illustrative model only. It uses no DraftKings data and asserts no outcome. It binds a jurisdiction, a rule set, a version string, and an effective date into a signed receipt, so which rule governed one synthetic event-contract session is independently recorded. Switch the jurisdiction to see the same session resolve under a different rule version.

Check a disclosure receipt yourself. No install.

This builds a real signed receipt for a promotion disclosure, checks it in your browser, lets you break one byte and watch the check refuse it, re-checks pasted evidence, and re-verifies a published 5,000-receipt soak test. Everything runs in this tab, using the same signing engine, offline check, and receipt structure Hive uses across every illustrative proof page on this site.

The signing engine is bundled and served from this same site. After the page loads it makes zero outside calls except two same-site file reads it names out loud. Core verification is fully offline.

Every click prints the recomputed hash next to the stored hash, one line per layer. A changed byte reads FAIL in the same output; a clean receipt reads PASS. Success is labelled, never color alone. There is no server round-trip. The 5,000-receipt soak is a local, in-browser signature re-verification of a published summary, not a live throughput claim.

Group many receipts, then seal the bundle

A discovery production, a filing exhibit, or an independent review usually spans many receipts, not one. This demo takes a disclosure receipt, an account-control receipt, and a settlement receipt from one synthetic matter, rolls them into a single grouped proof vector that names the weakest link, folds it into a signed bundle a court or opposing party can check offline, and lets you change one item after signing to watch the check refuse it. All values are synthetic.

Move the sliders. See evidence volume and time you stop reconstructing.

This is an evidence-coverage tool. It counts how many signed disclosure and control receipts a given daily activity level produces and how much reconstruction time signed coverage can remove. Every value below is a number you set. It is not a forecast, a quote, or a dollar-savings claim, and it makes no assumption about DraftKings' real volume.

Whatever you enter, the last number is always zero. Receipts carry one-way fingerprints and commitments, never raw account or customer data. Evidence volume scales with impressions; proprietary data moved to Hive does not scale at all, because it never moves.

Where this fits the exposure surface

The same signed receipt fits many parts of the exposure documented in the current public record. Here is where it earns its keep, in plain words, with the Hive primitive named as a small label and a candid read on whether it helps now or is a fast-follow. DraftKings facts referenced are drawn from primary filings and named reporting, linked at the foot of the page. Hive sits alongside, never inside the decision to show, accept, or settle.

helps now means the primitive is live in the offline verifier on this page. fast-follow means it needs an integration before it applies. Nothing here is forced onto a use it does not fit.

What supports this behind the scenes

You do not need any of this to understand the value. It is here for the people who want to look under the hood. Each row is a plain benefit first, with the Hive part named as a small label.

Explore Hive Proof Architecture.

The keys stay with you

In plain words: your organization holds the pen that signs. Hive never touches your proprietary account or customer data, never decides what to show or who may wager, and never holds your keys.