Dutch Regulator Orders Polymarket to Halt Betting Services

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-02-21Actualizado a 2026-02-21

Resumen

The Netherlands Gambling Authority has ordered Polymarket's Dutch affiliate, Adventure One, to immediately halt its unlicensed betting services in the country. The platform, which allowed users to place bets on events like local elections, faces potential fines of up to $990,000 for non-compliance. This action highlights the regulatory clash surrounding prediction markets, which offer wagers not permitted under Dutch law, even for licensed operators. The enforcement occurs amid broader debates on digital asset regulations in the Netherlands, including a proposed capital gains tax on cryptocurrencies. This case underscores the ongoing tension between rapidly growing prediction markets and national gambling frameworks across various jurisdictions.

The Netherlands Gambling Authority has ordered its Dutch affiliate, Adventure One, to put a stop to providing betting services to natives without permission, marking a move against prediction markets platform Polymarket.

As per the notice released on February 17, the regulator mentioned that the company must ban its activities quickly or risk penalties of up to $990,000. Officials mentioned that the platform permitted users in the Netherlands to place bets banned under national law, comprising contracts associated with local elections, and had not replied to previous requests from authorities to address the issue.

Ella Seijsener, the director of licensing and supervision of the authority, said that prediction markets are increasing, including in the Netherlands. She also mentioned that such operators offer wagers that aren’t permitted in the Dutch market under any circumstances, even for licensed gambling firms.

At the beginning of this year, the CLO of the company, Neal Kumar, mentioned the company was open to discussions with regulators while US federal courts look for questions over oversight of prediction markets.

The Hold of The Operations

The debate reflects wider regulatory tension around event-based contracts. In the US, platforms providing similar products have drawn investigation from state authorities, many of which claim the services look like sports betting.

Meanwhile, leadership at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has pushed back against state interference, saying it has federal jurisdiction over prediction market activity. The enforcement action also comes as Dutch policymakers debate tighter regulations impacting digital assets.

The House of Representatives of the country has progressed a proposal rolling out a 36% capital gains tax on some investments, a measure anticipated to cover cryptocurrencies if approved.

Currently, the order of the regulator has placed Polymarket’s operations in the Netherlands on hold, underscoring how quickly increasing prediction markets are hitting with national gambling frameworks over various jurisdictions.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

OFFICIAL TRUMP (TRUMP) Slides to $3: Hold the Line or Head for Deeper Losses?

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat action did the Netherlands Gambling Authority take against Polymarket's Dutch affiliate?

AThe Netherlands Gambling Authority ordered its Dutch affiliate, Adventure One, to stop providing betting services to Dutch residents without permission.

QWhat potential financial penalty does Polymarket face for non-compliance with the order?

APolymarket faces potential fines of up to $990,000 if it does not quickly ban its activities in the Netherlands.

QAccording to the regulator, what type of bets did Polymarket allow that are prohibited under Dutch law?

AThe platform permitted users to place bets banned under national law, including contracts associated with local elections.

QHow has the regulatory action affected Polymarket's operations in the Netherlands?

AThe order has placed Polymarket's operations in the Netherlands on hold.

QWhat broader regulatory development in the Netherlands is mentioned alongside this enforcement action?

ADutch policymakers are debating tighter regulations impacting digital assets, including a proposal for a 36% capital gains tax on some investments that would cover cryptocurrencies if approved.

Lecturas Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

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Hace 7 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 7 hora(s)

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.

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

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Hace 10 hora(s)

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

链捕手Hace 10 hora(s)

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?

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

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

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros