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

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-03-11Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-11

Introduzione

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

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbit7 min fa

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbit7 min fa

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbit7 min fa

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbit7 min fa

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

The market's expectation for a September Fed rate hike surged dramatically in early August, jumping from under 50% to over 80% within a week. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting, where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed growing dissent from hawkish members advocating for an immediate hike to combat persistent inflation. The primary catalyst for this repricing is rising oil prices, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which threaten global supply. Energy costs directly influence inflation metrics, making the upcoming July CPI report (due August 12th) a critical data point. If it shows inflation reaccelerating, the probability of a September hike will solidify. For Bitcoin and crypto assets, this is typically bearish news. Bitcoin continues to behave as a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. A rate hike raises the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets and could drive capital toward money markets, pressuring crypto prices in the short term. However, historical patterns suggest that if a hike is perceived as the end of a tightening cycle rather than the start, any negative price impact may be brief. U.S. stocks, particularly crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and growth-oriented tech stocks, are also vulnerable. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, putting pressure on high-multiple companies. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditure to tangible revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flow and weak growth narratives could face heightened volatility if borrowing costs rise in September. In summary, a September Fed hike has evolved into a mainstream market scenario. Key factors to watch are oil prices, the July CPI report, and Fed communications, which will determine the final decision and its impact on volatile crypto and equity markets.

marsbit18 min fa

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

marsbit18 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片