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

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

Kalshi-CFTC Fight In New Mexico Could Shape Prediction Market Rules

A jurisdictional battle between the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the state of New Mexico over the regulation of prediction markets could set national rules for the industry. At issue is who polices platforms like Kalshi, with the CFTC asserting federal oversight and New Mexico arguing state gaming and consumer protection laws apply, especially for contracts resembling wagers on events like elections or sports. The outcome will determine if prediction markets can scale nationally under a clear federal framework or face a fragmented, state-by-state regulatory landscape. This dispute is significant for the crypto-adjacent trading community, which often engages with these speculative event markets. A clearer rulebook could boost mainstream adoption, liquidity, and integration with crypto infrastructure, while a state-led challenge could stifle growth. The case is particularly sensitive for sports-related contracts, where the line between financial markets and gambling blurs. Ultimately, this legal fight will shape whether prediction markets become a scalable national product or remain constrained by jurisdictional conflicts.

bitcoinist5 min fa

Kalshi-CFTC Fight In New Mexico Could Shape Prediction Market Rules

bitcoinist5 min fa

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbit5 h fa

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手5 h fa

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

Nvidia's recent announcement to issue at least $20 billion in senior notes, despite holding a strong cash position with over $48.6 billion in free cash flow last quarter, is not a sign of financial need. Instead, it represents a strategic move to leverage its high credit rating (recently upgraded to AA by S&P) to secure low-cost, long-term debt. This capital will support long-term AI infrastructure investments, data centers, R&D, supply chain prepayments, and strategic investments, while allowing the company to continue aggressive shareholder returns through stock buybacks and dividends. The decision reflects a mature capital management strategy: using debt to finance long-term growth assets is more efficient and less dilutive to shareholders than equity financing. It signals that Nvidia, like other tech giants (Alphabet, Meta, Amazon), is entering a new phase of heavy AI capital expenditure, shifting from a pure growth story to a story about capital allocation, credit strength, and long-term ecosystem positioning. The key question for investors is whether Nvidia can maintain its high cash flow generation and ensure that returns from these AI investments justify the cost of capital over the long term. The bond issuance amplifies its expansion capabilities but also ties its valuation more closely to the broader AI investment cycle's sustainability and profitability.

marsbit5 h fa

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

marsbit5 h fa

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

Liberland's congress has voted to remove Technology Secretary Dorian Stern Vukotić, following a resolution accusing him of attempting to hijack the Liberland.org domain, removing administrative multisig protections, blocking the president from voting, and launching unauthorized tokens. The incident serves as a case study in blockchain governance, highlighting risks that go beyond smart contracts to include control over domains, admin keys, and off-chain authority. For the crypto industry, it underscores the need to scrutinize decentralization claims against operational realities, where a small group can still compromise governance. The story reflects a broader market shift where infrastructure security and governance are becoming as critical as price action. Editorial framing should treat the development as a verified information signal about governance risks, avoiding overstatement of Liberland's legal status and leaving room for follow-up evidence.

bitcoinist6 h fa

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

bitcoinist6 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures