Polymarket Faces New Roadblock As Dutch Regulator Bans Prediction Activity — Details

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-02-22Actualizado a 2026-02-22

Resumen

Polymarket's Dutch operations, under the entity Adventure One, have been ordered to cease all activities by the Netherlands Gambling Authority (Ksa) for offering unlicensed prediction markets, which the regulator classifies as illegal gambling. The platform faces potential fines of up to $840,000 per week for non-compliance. This action is the latest regulatory challenge for Polymarket, creating a conflict between US federal approval and state-level scrutiny. The news coincides with a recent parliamentary proposal in the Netherlands to introduce a controversial 36% tax on unrealized gains from cryptocurrencies and other investments, a move critics warn could drive investors out of the country.

According to recent reports, the Dutch arm of the prediction markets platform Polymarket has been asked to cease its activities in the Netherlands. This order comes as the latest regulatory blow dealt to the prediction market platform in recent weeks.

Dutch Regulator Threatens Polymarket With $840,000 Fine

In a notice dated Tuesday, February 17, the Netherlands Gambling Authority ordered Polymarket’s Dutch arm, Adventure One, to “cease its activities immediately” or risk incurring up to $840,000 in fines per week. According to the Dutch regulator, Adventure One offered illegal bets, including on the local elections, to residents without a license.

While prediction markets do not particularly fall into the traditional gambling category, the Netherlands Gambling Authority has classified them as betting. The regulator revealed that it contacted Polymarket about its activities on the Dutch market, but have seen no corrective action or response from the prediction markets company.

Netherlands Gambling Authority’s director of licensing and supervision, Ella Seijsener, said in the notice:

Prediction markets are on the rise, including in the Netherlands. These types of companies offer bets that are not permitted in our market under any circumstances, not even by license holders. Besides the social risks of these kinds of predictions (for example, the potential influence on elections), we conclude that this constitutes illegal gambling. Anyone without a Ksa license has no business in our market. This also applies to these new gambling platforms.

This restriction in the Netherlands marks the latest stumbling block for Polymarket in terms of regulation over the past few months. Despite receiving approvals from the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), individual state authorities have placed significant scrutiny on the activities of prediction market platforms.

This has led to an issue of jurisdiction, as the CFTC chair criticized the state-level scrutiny which undermines their federal authority over prediction markets.

Dutch Unrealized Gains Tax On Crypto Rolls On

This crackdown on prediction markets comes just a week after the Dutch House of Representatives advanced a proposal to introduce a 36% capital gains tax on most liquid investments, including cryptocurrencies. This controversial bill, if passed, would see profits made from interest-bearing financial instruments, equity investments, cryptocurrencies, and savings accounts be subject to tax, whether realized or not.

The proposal of this capital gains tax led to interesting reactions, with several crypto analysts noting that the legislation will drive investors out of the Netherlands. “To be honest, the fact that there’s the unrealized gains tax for Bitcoin in the Netherlands is the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a long time. The amount of people willing to flee the country is going to be bananas,” analyst Michaël van de Poppe said on X.

The price of BTC on the daily timeframe | Source: BTCUSDT chart on TradingView

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat action did the Dutch Gambling Authority take against Polymarket's Dutch arm, Adventure One?

AThe Dutch Gambling Authority ordered Adventure One to cease its activities immediately or face fines of up to $840,000 per week.

QWhat was the primary reason given by the Dutch regulator for banning Polymarket's activities?

AThe regulator classified Polymarket's prediction markets as illegal gambling, stating they offered bets that are not permitted in the Dutch market without a license, including on events like local elections.

QHow did the director of licensing, Ella Seijsener, justify the crackdown on prediction markets?

AElla Seijsener stated that prediction markets offer illegal bets, pose social risks such as potential influence on elections, and constitute illegal gambling that requires a license to operate in the Netherlands.

QWhat recent tax proposal in the Netherlands has also impacted the crypto space?

AThe Dutch House of Representatives advanced a proposal to introduce a 36% capital gains tax on most liquid investments, including cryptocurrencies, taxing both realized and unrealized gains.

QWhat concern did crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe raise about the proposed Dutch tax on unrealized crypto gains?

AMichaël van de Poppe called the tax 'the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a long time' and predicted that it would cause a significant number of people to flee the country.

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 4 hora(s)

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHace 4 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 4 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 4 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 7 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 7 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 8 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 8 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 9 hora(s)

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

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros