Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Ban Prediction Market Bets on War and Death

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-03-11Last updated on 2026-03-11

Abstract

U.S. Senator Adam Schiff introduced the DEATH BETS Act, a bill to prohibit prediction markets from offering contracts related to war, terrorism, and individual deaths. This move contrasts with the CFTC's recent efforts to relax regulations on such markets. Supporters argue that these bets could enable insider trading using classified information and pose national security risks. The bill represents a policy clash between lawmakers seeking stricter controls and regulators favoring market flexibility. If passed, it could initiate broader discussions on event-based betting regulations.

U.S. Senator Adam Schiff has introduced a new bill called the DEATH BETS Act, which aims to ban prediction market contracts related to events such as war, terrorism, and individual deaths. The bill comes at a time when the CFTC is moving towards looser rules for the prediction markets, which creates a policy clash between lawmakers and regulators.

What are prediction markets?

Basically, prediction markets allow people to bet on the outcomes of future events. Participants buy contracts that pay out if a specific event happens. However, some platforms have started listing contracts related to serious or sensitive events.

The new Death Bet Act would make it illegal for the regulated exchanges to offer contracts linked to war, terrorism, and the death of an individual. The bill would also ban the contracts that are indirectly connected to a person’s death. Currently, CFTC has the authority to block these contracts if it believes they go against the public interest.

Supporters of this bill argue that betting on the violent event could create serious risks. Senator Schiff says these markets could allow people with insider knowledge or classified information to profit from the tragic event. He also warns that these bets on war or death could threaten national security.

The bill comes at a time when the CFTC is reconsidering how the prediction market should be regulated. In February, the agency withdrew a previous proposal from 2024 that would have broadly banned political prediction markets. By introducing the Death Bets Act, Schiff is effectively pushing back against the regulators’ more permissive approach.

This debate shows that the lawmakers want stronger restrictions and regulators who favor greater flexibility for the protection of markets. If this bill passes, then it would mark the beginning of the larger policy discussion about the role of event-based betting.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Crypto Market Eyes Upcoming US February Inflation Data

TagsCrypto BillCryptocurrency

Related Questions

QWhat is the name of the bill introduced by Senator Adam Schiff and what does it aim to ban?

AThe bill is called the DEATH BETS Act, and it aims to ban prediction market contracts related to events such as war, terrorism, and individual deaths.

QWhat is the primary concern of supporters of the DEATH BETS Act regarding these prediction markets?

ASupporters argue that these markets could allow people with insider or classified information to profit from tragic events and that betting on violent events could threaten national security.

QHow does the introduction of this bill relate to the current actions of the CFTC?

AThe bill creates a policy clash because it is introduced at a time when the CFTC is moving towards looser rules for prediction markets, with the agency having recently withdrawn a proposal to ban political prediction markets.

QWhat authority does the CFTC currently have over prediction market contracts?

AThe CFTC currently has the authority to block prediction market contracts if it believes they go against the public interest.

QWhat broader discussion could the passage of this bill potentially start?

AIf passed, the bill would mark the beginning of a larger policy discussion about the role of event-based betting.

Related Reads

The Shutdown of Claude Mythos Revealed the True Cost of Renting AI to Me

The sudden shutdown of Claude Mythos this week starkly highlights a critical, often overlooked risk for founders: when your core capability relies entirely on someone else's platform, your fate is not in your own hands. The key question becomes: who truly owns the intelligence your product depends on? For years, the debate around open-source models focused on cost. Now, the evidence is clear: fine-tuned open-source models can achieve frontier-level quality for specific, mission-critical tasks at a fraction of the cost. However, the deeper issue is control. Relying on a third-party API is like renting; it works until the landlord changes the rules, raises the rent, or asks you to leave—as Mythos experienced. The lesson is not to stop using frontier models—they are incredible infrastructure. The goal is ownership. Ownership means starting with a powerful open-source model and shaping it around what makes your company unique: your data, workflows, domain expertise, and definition of "good." Over time, the model becomes less generic and more reflective of your business, creating durable value. The optimistic conclusion is that AI's future doesn't hinge on one superior model. There is no single frontier. The frontier includes proprietary models, models fine-tuned on company-specific knowledge, specialized models for narrow problems, and intelligent routers orchestrating model ensembles. The most interesting development is not models getting smarter, but intelligence becoming increasingly customizable. The winning companies will be those that transform intelligence into a unique, owned asset. Looking ahead, the vision is not one model dominating all, but many teams owning the part of the frontier that matters most to them.

marsbit8m ago

The Shutdown of Claude Mythos Revealed the True Cost of Renting AI to Me

marsbit8m ago

Tiger Research: U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve - Should the Market Be Happy or Disappointed?

Tiger Research analyzes the evolution of U.S. legislative efforts regarding a strategic Bitcoin reserve, concluding the market impact is limited in the short term but potentially positive long-term. The core event was a March 2025 executive order by former President Trump, which designated confiscated Bitcoin as a strategic reserve and promised not to sell existing holdings (approx. 190k BTC). As it contained no mandate to purchase new Bitcoin, the market reacted negatively, with prices dropping 5.7%. Legislative history shows a significant retreat from initial ambitions. The 2024 "BITCOIN Act" proposed mandatory purchases of 1 million BTC over five years. Reintroduced in 2025, it stalled due to high fiscal costs, concerns over dollar hegemony, and opposition from the Treasury Secretary. The current frontrunner, the 2026 "American Retirement and Monetary Advancement (ARMA) Act," is a compromise. It lacks any purchase requirement, instead focusing on consolidating existing government-held Bitcoin and legally prohibiting its sale for at least 20 years. While ARMA has higher passage odds due to bipartisan support and no purchase mandate, its immediate market effect is neutral. It eliminates potential government selling pressure but creates no new demand. The long-term significance is that formally establishing Bitcoin as a national reserve asset in law could later reignite debates on mandatory purchases. Therefore, the path to a government buyer is longer than initially priced by the market, but the directional narrative remains intact.

marsbit11m ago

Tiger Research: U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve - Should the Market Be Happy or Disappointed?

marsbit11m ago

US Stock Market Trend (June 16): SpaceX Rises 42% in Two Days, New Fed Chairman Takes Office Today

**U.S. Stocks Trend (June 16): SpaceX Soars 42% in Two Days, New Fed Chair Takes Office Today** Markets surged on Monday following former President Trump's social media announcement of a completed U.S.-Iran deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, pending a June 19 signing. The news triggered a broad risk-on rally: oil prices crashed, tech stocks soared, bond yields fell, and defensive sectors lagged. **Market Performance:** The Nasdaq jumped 3.07%, led by semiconductor stocks like Micron (+9.2%). The S&P 500 gained 1.65%, and the Dow rose 0.92% to a record high. However, the Russell 2000 small-cap index underperformed (+0.72%). SpaceX continued its hot streak, rising another 5% pre-market after disclosures of large buys by an Australian billionaire and Cathie Wood's ARK. Boeing also rallied on the transportation optimism. Conversely, energy stocks like Chevron fell over 3% on the oil price plunge, with other defensive sectors also selling off. The day's action showed a clear rotation of funds from energy/defensive plays into AI and tech narratives. **Macro & Outlook:** The VIX fear index fell 8.37%. Treasury yields declined, and WTI crude dropped over 5%. Attention now shifts to a packed schedule: the Bank of Japan is widely expected to hike rates to 1.0% on Tuesday. The Fed's June meeting concludes Wednesday, marking new Chair Wash's debut. While rates are expected to hold, his tone on stubborn inflation and the "dot plot" will be crucial for gauging the 2024 rate path. The formal Iran deal signing is set for Friday. **Trend Perspective:** While the peace deal is a genuine positive, Monday's explosive rally may have gotten ahead of itself, pricing in a swift resolution to inflation concerns. The shortened trading week faces a triple test: BoJ tightening, the Fed's policy stance, and deal implementation details. Tech and semiconductors, which led the surge, remain vulnerable to any disappointment from these key events. The real price discovery begins with the central banks' communications this week.

marsbit32m ago

US Stock Market Trend (June 16): SpaceX Rises 42% in Two Days, New Fed Chairman Takes Office Today

marsbit32m ago

Xiaohongshu's Second Great Voyage, This Time Sailing Towards AI

Xiaohongshu's Second Voyage: Navigating Towards AI Since ChatGPT's emergence, Xiaohongshu's founder Mao Wenchao has been acutely aware of AI's potential threat, recognizing that the life advice people seek from chatbots overlaps directly with his platform's core business. Founded in 2013 as a PDF shopping guide for Chinese tourists, Xiaohongshu evolved into a massive community where millions share authentic, personal experiences—from product reviews to travel tips. This vast repository of "I've tried this" human judgment became its most valuable asset. However, the rise of AI, which delivers instant answers, challenges the very need for users to sift through numerous personal notes. Fearing its treasure trove of lived experience could become mere training data for others, Xiaohongshu is proactively adapting. In 2026, it established a dedicated AI division (Dots), launched RED Skill to turn user experiences into usable AI tools, and acquired the AI search product "Diandian." Its investments now extend to AI firms like MiniMax and hardware startups, moving upstream to address needs before they even become search queries. The platform's commercialization strategy is also evolving. With a newly acquired payment license and tools like the AIPS model to track consumer decision journeys, Xiaohongshu aims to seamlessly integrate recommendations with transactions, embedding commerce within AI-generated answers. Yet, a critical tension remains. While building smarter machines to organize and leverage its human experiences, Xiaohongshu must prevent AI from drowning out the authentic, flawed, and trustworthy "I've tried this" voices that built its community. Its core challenge is to harness AI's power without letting the map—the machine's perfect, synthesized answer—replace the territory of genuine human experience. This balance between technological advancement and preserving human trust defines its current journey and its future.

marsbit1h ago

Xiaohongshu's Second Great Voyage, This Time Sailing Towards AI

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片