各州围剿、CFTC反诉，预测市场正被监管撕扯

Odaily星球日报Published on 2026-04-28Last updated on 2026-04-28

原创 | Odaily 星球日报(@OdailyChina)

作者 | Asher(@Asher_ 0210)

预测市场在美国的扩张,正撞上越来越密集的监管阻力。

过去,Polymarket、Kalshi 等平台借助体育、选举、宏观经济、加密资产和社会事件快速出圈,把“交易未来结果”包装成一种新的信息市场和金融市场形态。但随着用户规模和交易品类扩大,美国多个州开始给出完全不同的定义:这不是创新金融产品,而是未经许可的在线赌博。

从亚利桑那、康涅狄格、伊利诺伊,到纽约、马萨诸塞、密歇根、华盛顿、内华达等州,预测市场正在遭遇起诉、禁令、停止函和监管调查。更关键的是,CFTC(美国商品期货交易委员会)已经亲自下场,起诉多个州,试图确认自己对事件合约市场的排他监管权。也就是说,预测市场的争议已经不只是某个平台是否合规,而是美国联邦监管与州级博彩监管之间的正面冲突。

多州起诉,预测市场遭遇监管盯防

从表面看,美国各州的监管动作指向不同平台。有的州针对 Kalshi,有的州针对 Polymarket,有的州把 Crypto.com、Robinhood、Coinbase、Gemini 等也纳入视野。但如果把这些案件放在一起看,会发现监管者的核心担忧高度一致:预测市场正在用“事件合约”的外壳,绕过各州原本针对博彩、体育投注和消费者保护建立的监管体系。

亚利桑那、康涅狄格和伊利诺伊是最早引发联邦反诉的三个州。三州此前对 Kalshi、Polymarket、Crypto.com、Robinhood 等平台采取监管行动,认为它们提供的事件合约可能违反州内赌博法。亚利桑那甚至对 Kalshi 提起刑事指控,指控其涉嫌促成非法赌博,并触及该州关于选举投注的限制。随后,美国商品期货交易委员会(CFTC)起诉这三个州,认为州政府不能用地方赌博法干预由联邦监管的全国性衍生品市场。

纽约则让这场监管冲突进一步扩大。纽约总检察长 Letitia James 起诉 Coinbase Financial Markets 和 Gemini Titan,称它们的预测市场业务属于未经许可的赌博。纽约方面强调,这些平台没有获得纽约州博彩委员会许可,却允许用户围绕体育、选举等事件结果进行交易;同时,平台允许 18 至 20 岁用户参与,而纽约移动体育投注的最低年龄要求为 21 岁。

这些案件的共同点在于,州政府并不是反对“预测”本身,而是认为平台正在把下注行为包装成金融交易,并借此绕过博彩牌照、年龄限制、税收规则和消费者保护要求。在州政府看来,很多事件合约和传统博彩之间的边界并不清晰。用户下注一支球队是否获胜,下注一场比赛的分差,下注某位候选人是否当选,或者下注某个政治、娱乐事件是否发生,本质上都在围绕不受用户控制的外部结果下注。平台虽然使用“合约”“市场”“交易”等表述,但州政府看到的是用户投入资金,押注结果,押对获得收益,押错损失本金。

体育类事件是监管冲突最集中的领域。马萨诸塞州此前起诉 Kalshi,称其未经许可提供体育投注业务。近期,38 名州总检察长加入法庭之友文件,支持马萨诸塞州的诉讼,反对 Kalshi 将体育预测包装成金融工具的说法。密歇根、华盛顿、威斯康星等州的逻辑也大体类似。它们关注的不是预测市场能不能提升信息效率,而是平台是否在没有获得博彩许可的情况下,向本州居民提供体育或其他事件下注服务。

这意味着,预测市场的压力已经不只落在 Polymarket 和 Kalshi 这类原生平台身上。当 Coinbase、Gemini、Robinhood、Crypto.com 等主流交易平台也被卷入,问题就变成了整个行业入口的合规问题。预测市场不再只是一个垂直赛道,而连带变成交易所、经纪商、加密平台共同面对的新监管变量。

平台反击:我们不是赌场,而是联邦监管的金融市场

面对各州起诉,Kalshi、Polymarket 等平台的核心反击逻辑很清楚,认为它们不是赌场,而是在提供受 CFTC 监管的事件合约市场。

这一逻辑的关键在于“监管归属”。若事件合约被视为金融衍生品,那么它们应当由联邦监管机构统一监管,各州不能再用本地赌博法逐一限制;若事件合约被视为博彩产品,那么平台就必须面对各州碎片化的博彩牌照、年龄门槛、税收制度和市场准入规则。

这也是 Kalshi、Polymarket 等平台必须守住的底线。对它们来说,预测市场最大的商业价值,正是可以用金融市场的方式全国性扩张。如果每进入一个州都要重新申请博彩牌照、遵守当地体育博彩规则、接受本地博彩监管机构审查,那么预测市场的扩张效率将大幅下降,很多产品也可能无法继续上线。

此外,平台方还会强调,预测市场并不只是娱乐下注,而可以为现实世界提供价格发现功能。选举、利率、通胀、体育、政策、地缘冲突和加密事件,本质上都是不确定性,预测市场通过真实资金激励参与者表达判断,从而形成一种可交易、可观察的概率价格。

CFTC 亲自下场起诉,冲突升级

这场冲突真正升级,是从 CFTC 亲自起诉州政府开始的。

CFTC 已经起诉亚利桑那、康涅狄格和伊利诺伊,阻止这些州用赌博法监管预测市场。其核心观点是,事件合约属于受联邦监管的市场,州政府不能用地方执法行动破坏全国性衍生品监管框架。近期,该机构又起诉纽约州,认为纽约针对预测市场的执法行动侵犯了其排他监管权。

这让预测市场的监管争议变得更加复杂。过去,外界看到的是州政府和平台之间的冲突;现在,真正对峙的双方变成了州政府和联邦监管机构。一边认为自己有权保护本州居民免受非法赌博侵害,另一边认为州政府正在干扰联邦金融市场监管。预测市场只是导火索,背后是美国监管体系内部关于权力边界的争夺。

纽约案尤其具有代表性。纽约总检察长起诉 Coinbase 和 Gemini 后,CFTC 很快对纽约州采取法律行动。纽约州方面认为,州内赌博法必须适用于这些平台,因为“换一个名字的赌博仍然是赌博”;而联邦监管机构则认为,州政府不能把联邦监管的事件合约市场重新定义为地方赌博活动。

平台并非没有胜利,但风险仍在扩大

尽管各州监管动作密集,但平台方并不是单方面承压,新泽西案就是一个关键节点。第三巡回上诉法院近期支持 Kalshi,认为新泽西不能监管 Kalshi 的预测市场业务,这被视为平台方在“联邦优先权”问题上的重要胜利。

这个判决给预测市场行业释放了一个信号——至少在部分法院看来,州政府不能轻易把联邦监管下的预测市场重新纳入本州博彩监管体系。对于 Kalshi 这类平台而言,这不仅是一场单州诉讼的胜利,更是其全国性扩张叙事的重要支撑。

但这并不意味着平台已经安全,不同州、不同法院、不同产品类型之间,仍然可能出现不同判断。体育合约、选举合约、加密资产相关合约、宏观经济合约所面临的监管风险并不相同。对平台来说,真正困难的地方在于,它们既要证明自己属于金融市场,又要解释为什么某些高度类似体育博彩或政治下注的产品不应被当作赌博。

预测市场的监管压力也不只来自牌照问题。随着交易品类不断扩张,平台正在进入一些天然高敏感的领域,包括体育、选举、战争、外交和司法事件。体育合约容易撞上博彩法,选举合约容易撞上政治伦理,战争和外交事件则可能触及内幕信息与国家安全。

从增长故事到合规摊牌

过去,预测市场讲的是增长故事。Polymarket 靠政治和加密事件出圈,Kalshi 依靠合规交易所身份拓展事件合约,Coinbase、Gemini、Robinhood 等平台也开始切入这一赛道。行业的叙事很清晰,未来的一切不确定性,都可以被定价、被交易、被金融化。

但现在,预测市场被迫进入另一个阶段。它不再只需要证明用户愿意交易事件,也要证明这种交易不会变成更高效的赌博;它不再只需要证明市场价格有信息价值,也要证明内幕人士、候选人、运动员、政府人员和平台本身不会滥用信息优势;它不再只需要面对用户增长问题,还要回答联邦监管、州级博彩监管和消费者保护之间的复杂冲突。

这也是各州起诉潮真正释放的信号。美国监管者并不是简单否定预测市场,而是在逼迫这个行业回答一个根本问题:当体育、选举、战争、宏观经济和加密事件都可以被下注时,它到底是金融市场,还是线上赌场?

如果 CFTC 最终赢得监管权之争,预测市场可能迎来一条更清晰的联邦合规路径,行业也会加速金融化和平台化。但如果各州在关键案件中占据上风,预测市场的扩张节奏将被重新切割。不同州可能对体育、选举、娱乐和政治事件设下不同限制,平台也将面对更高的合规成本和更碎片化的市场结构。

现在,美国各州、美国商品期货交易委员会、法院和平台都已经入场,这场围绕预测市场的监管之争,才刚刚开始。

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit10h ago

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit10h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手10h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手10h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit12h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit12h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手13h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手13h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit14h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'