Nasdaq Ventures into Prediction Markets: Wall Street Bets on Tech Index with 'Yes or No'

Odaily星球日报Published on 2026-03-03Last updated on 2026-03-03

Abstract

Nasdaq has filed a proposal with the SEC to launch binary options, or "outcome-related options," on its flagship Nasdaq-100 and Nasdaq-100 Micro indexes. These contracts allow investors to make "yes or no" predictions on whether specific conditions will be met by the index at expiration. Priced between $0.01 and $1.00, the contract value reflects the perceived probability of the outcome—settling at $1 if true and $0 if false. This simplifies trading to a direct bet on event outcomes, rather than price movements. The Nasdaq-100, heavily weighted toward major tech stocks like Apple and Nvidia, is highly sensitive to market sentiment, making it an ideal underlying asset for such products. This move signals traditional exchanges' growing interest in prediction markets. Unlike the Intercontinental Exchange's recent strategic investment in Polymarket, Nasdaq is directly integrating predictive structures into its existing product lineup. If approved, this would mark a significant step in bringing prediction-based trading into the regulated mainstream financial system, blending traditional derivatives with event-driven speculation.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Asher (@Asher_ 0210)

Last night, Nasdaq Inc. submitted a rule change proposal to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), planning to introduce an options contract that allows investors to make "yes or no" judgments on major stock indices.

According to the document, Nasdaq intends to list "binary options," also known as "outcome-related options," on its flagship products—the Nasdaq 100 Index and the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index. If approved, this would mark Nasdaq's first official foray into products with prediction market attributes.

This move signifies that traditional stock exchange giants are actively entering the rapidly growing prediction market sector.

What Are Binary Options?

The proposed contracts have a pricing range of 1 cent to 1 dollar, with the price itself directly reflecting the market's judgment of the probability of a specific outcome.

For example, if a contract is based on whether "the Nasdaq 100 Index meets a certain condition at a specific time point," then:

  • If the market believes the probability of this outcome is 80%, the price might be close to $0.80;
  • If the condition is met at expiration, the contract settles at $1;
  • If the condition is not met, the contract value becomes zero.

If traditional options are about betting on "how much it will rise or fall," binary options are more concerned with "whether it will happen." There are no complex parameters, no interval calculations—only the outcome itself. This all-or-nothing settlement method makes trading more like making a clear judgment about the future.

Because of this, such products are closer in form to the logic of prediction markets.

Why Choose the Nasdaq 100?

Nasdaq's choice is not an ordinary index but one of the most sentiment-sensitive assets. The Nasdaq 100 has long been regarded as a core indicator of the U.S. technology sector, with concentrated holdings in heavyweight companies like Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta. These companies almost always become market focal points each quarter. An earnings report, a regulatory update, or even a policy statement can quickly reflect in the index's movement.

The high concentration of components means that the Nasdaq 100's trends often revolve around a single focus. The market might bet on AI expectations for a period, then shift to interest rate paths or policy changes. During earnings or policy-intensive periods, the index typically reflects market judgments in a relatively short time rather than prolonged back-and-forth fluctuations.

Additionally, the Nasdaq 100 itself has a mature derivatives trading foundation, ample liquidity, and a well-established pricing system. Introducing new structured products on this underlying asset is risk-controllable and more likely to gain market acceptance.

Two Ways Traditional Exchanges Are Entering the Market

Nasdaq is not the first traditional exchange to show interest in prediction markets. In October 2025, Intercontinental Exchange, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, announced a strategic investment of approximately $2 billion in Polymarket, acquiring about a 20% stake, with the transaction valuation once reaching around $8 billion.

The NYSE's choice was not to launch its own prediction products but to enter the field through capital participation and data cooperation. Its core intention is to obtain real-time probability data formed by prediction markets and incorporate it into institutional service systems. For the NYSE, prediction markets are more like supplementary sentiment indicators and data assets.

In contrast, Nasdaq's approach is more direct. It chooses to embed binary structures into its core index product line, extending within the existing trading framework. Compared to investing in external prediction market platforms, this method means predictive trading is incorporated into the standardized securities product system, rather than being just an external data source.

The difference in strategies reflects the varying judgments of traditional exchanges when facing new trading structures.

Prediction Markets Are Being Integrated into Traditional Exchange Product Systems

Regardless of whether the SEC ultimately approves this proposal, Nasdaq's submission of the rule change application itself sends a clear signal—predictive trading is no longer just an experiment on crypto platforms or niche markets but is beginning to be integrated into traditional exchange product systems.

For a long time, mainstream derivatives have revolved around price fluctuations, with investors judging the magnitude and timing of rises and falls through different structures. Binary options simplify the question to whether the outcome will occur, shifting the trading focus from magnitude to the conclusion itself.

When the Nasdaq 100 Index is incorporated into such contract structures, the trading logic becomes more direct. The market's focus is no longer on the magnitude of fluctuations but on whether a specific outcome will materialize. The price reflects not just volatility but the consensus on the probability of the outcome.

For Nasdaq, this is an extension of its product line. For prediction market, it is the beginning of its structure being formally accepted by the mainstream system. If this product eventually launches, it could become a bridging attempt between traditional derivatives and event-based trading.

Related Questions

QWhat is the new type of option contract that Nasdaq has proposed to the SEC?

ANasdaq has proposed a 'binary option' or 'outcome-related option' contract that allows investors to make 'yes or no' judgments on major stock indices.

QWhich specific indices will the new binary options be based on if approved?

AThe binary options will be based on the Nasdaq 100 Index and the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index.

QHow does the pricing of these binary options reflect market expectations?

AThe price, ranging from 1 cent to 1 dollar, directly reflects the market's judgment of the probability of a specific outcome. For example, a price of $0.80 indicates an 80% probability that the condition will be met.

QWhat is the key difference between traditional options and these new binary options?

ATraditional options focus on 'how much' the price will move, while binary options focus on 'whether' a specific outcome will happen, with a simple all-or-nothing settlement.

QHow does Nasdaq's approach to entering the prediction market differ from that of the New York Stock Exchange's parent company?

ANasdaq is directly integrating binary structures into its core index products, while NYSE's parent, Intercontinental Exchange, made a strategic investment in an external prediction market platform, Polymarket, to gain access to real-time probability data.

Related Reads

Why Hasn't the U.S. Seen the Rise of 'Huabei' or 'Jiebei'?

The article explores why the U.S. lacks large-scale consumer credit products like China's "Huabei" and "Jiebei," despite having a developed financial sector. Key reasons include: 1. **Structural Barriers**: A fragmented federal and state regulatory system, reinforced by post-2008 reforms like the Dodd-Frank Act, raises compliance costs and protects traditional banks, stifling fintech innovation. 2. **Credit Card Dominance**: Credit cards, used by 70-80% of adults, form a $1.28 trillion debt market with high APRs (avg. 22.3%). This system cross-subsidizes users who pay in full with those carrying balances, creating a predatory yet entrenched ecosystem. 3. **Data Privacy Laws**: Strict regulations (e.g., FCRA, CCPA) prevent tech giants from leveraging behavioral data for credit scoring, unlike in China where such data fuels fintech models. 4. **Capital Market Disincentives**: Wall Street penalizes tech firms entering finance due to lower valuations associated with heavy regulation and risk, as seen in Apple’s failure with Apple Card. 5. **Banking Oligopoly**: Major banks control consumer lending, leveraging lobbying power and consumer habits to maintain high-cost credit, while alternatives like payday loans (400% APR) or "unbanked" services remain niche or exploitative. Ultimately, regulatory, structural, and corporate interests collectively block the emergence of accessible, low-cost digital lending in the U.S.

Odaily星球日报23m ago

Why Hasn't the U.S. Seen the Rise of 'Huabei' or 'Jiebei'?

Odaily星球日报23m ago

More and More 'Model Supermarkets' Are Opening: ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent Compete to Integrate

Chinese tech giants like ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent are accelerating the rollout of integrated AI model subscription services—dubbed “model supermarkets”—to provide developers with bundled access to multiple leading domestic large language models (LLMs). ByteDance’s Volcengine recently upgraded its "Coding Plan" by adding newer models like GLM-5.1, Minimax M2.7, and Kimi k2.6, allowing subscribers to use various top models under a single monthly fee starting at ¥40. However, user feedback reveals significant issues, including rapid consumption of usage limits (e.g., hitting caps within hours), frequent server errors (like HTTP 429), and slow response times during peak hours. Complaints about misleading deduction rates—where calls to advanced models consume more quota—are also common. The trend is industry-wide: Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu have all launched similar multi-model coding plans. While these platforms reduce trial costs for developers, they also expose challenges in balancing affordability with service quality and computational stability. Amid this shift, independent AI companies like Zhipu, MiniMax, and Moonlight Face (Kimi) are developing strategies to avoid becoming mere “pipes” in this ecosystem—focusing on vertical applications, autonomous agents, and long-context models to retain competitiveness. Analysts suggest that, while platform aggregation may pressure model firms in the short term, specialized and vertical AI capabilities will remain differentiated in the long run.

marsbit27m ago

More and More 'Model Supermarkets' Are Opening: ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent Compete to Integrate

marsbit27m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片