Crypto Prediction Markets Continue To Be Under Siege — Are Traders Now Fair Game For Prosecutors?

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-09Last updated on 2026-04-09

Abstract

U.S. federal regulators, including the CFTC and DOJ, are seeking a court order to prevent Arizona from enforcing its gambling laws against crypto prediction-market platform Kalshi. They argue that contracts tied to sports, elections, and real-world events qualify as financial derivatives ("swaps") under federal law, not state-regulated gambling. This legal action is part of a broader conflict between federal and state authorities over jurisdiction on prediction markets. Arizona and other states contend these platforms constitute illegal gambling and have initiated criminal charges. Similar legal pressures are affecting Kalshi’s rival, Polymarket, which faces lawsuits and investigations in multiple states. The outcome could either legitimize and boost U.S. prediction markets or fragment them into riskier offshore operations.

U.S. regulators are urging a court to stop Arizona from enforcing its gambling laws against crypto prediction‐market platform Kalshi.

Another Battle Over Crypto Prediction Markets

In a filing from yesterday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Justice Department (DOJ) commended a federal court to stop Arizona from using its gambling laws against crypto prediction‐market platform Kalshi.

The agencies are asking for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt Arizona’s criminal case and gambling‐law enforcement.

Related Reading: Bitcoin Creator Exposed? New Investigation Points At The Real Identity Of Satoshi Nakamoto

CFTC argues that these contracts tied to sports, elections and other real‐world events qualify as swaps (financial derivatives) under U.S. law, rather than falling under state gambling statutes. The federal regulators based their arguments on the fact that since the contracts are settled on future events with economic impact, they are governed by the Commodity Exchange Act and fall under federal law rather than state authority.

Such interpretation curbs how far individual states can go in blocking or constraining these platforms, which regulators say would otherwise splinter the market into a patchwork of state‐by‐state rules.

The Arizona Lawsuit Explained

Arizona charged Kalshi with illegal gambling over sports and election markets. Arizona, along with an expanding list of other states, argue that contracts tied to sports results operate like ordinary bets and must be treated as gambling, subject to licensing rules, age limits, and consumer safeguards.

According to the court filing, Arizona first sent a cease‐and‐desist order to KalshiEx LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC in May 2025, alleging they were taking unlawful bets in breach of state law. The state then brought criminal charges against both entities for “betting and wagering” under several Arizona statutes, with an arraignment set for April 13.

On Monday, a Third Circuit (one of the 13 U.S. federal courts of appeals) ruling stated that sports event contracts on designated contract markets (DCMs) are “swaps” preempting state gambling laws. However, one judge disagreed, blasting Kalshi’s stance as a “performative sleight” designed to hide the fact that its offerings are, in substance, sports betting.

Crypto Prediction Markets Under A Coordinated State Pushback

This move follows a broader CFTC and DOJ litigation against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois over prediction‐market jurisdiction. Bitcoinist reported on it last week. This past month, a bipartisan Senate bill targeting sports‐style bets on platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi was introduced by Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT).

Also on March, democratic representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts (MA-06) formally banned all his staff from participating in prediction markets. That same day, Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE-03) and Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski (D-IL-13) from Nebraska introduced the PREDICT Act, banning members of Congress from trading on political and policy outcome markets.

Related Reading: SEC Admits Flaws In Crypto Enforment, What Went Wrong?

Kalshi’s main rival, Polymarket, is also under mounting legal fire, with a New York class action filed in February alleging it runs an unlicensed sports‐betting operation. Regulators in Nevada have launched a civil case against its parent company, and authorities in Ohio, Utah, and Iowa have likewise begun probing the platform.

Not too long ago, Argentinian authorities ordered a full national ban of Polymarket after it “predicted” inflation data back in February. On top of that, the platform faced terrible backlash recently after bettors sent death threats to Times of Israel military reporter Emanuel Fabian, following his report of an Iranian ballistic missile on March 10.

Both Kalshi and Polymarket updated their rules at the end of March to preemptively block politicians, candidates and sports insiders from trading on related markets

If the federal preemption is upheld, it will de‐risks U.S. prediction venues, potentially boosting liquidity and making them more attractive as macro and sports‐beta tools for crypto‐savvy traders. However, if states carve out sports and politics as gambling, markets may fragment offshore or into on‐chain, harder‐to‐police venues, raising operational and legal risk premia for anyone treating these contracts as serious hedging instruments.

Yesterday, Bitcoin bounced back and reclaimed $72k. At the moment of writing, BTC trades for around $71k on the daily chart. Source: BTCUSD on Tradingview.

Cover image from Perplexity. BTCUSD chart from Tradingview.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main argument of the U.S. regulators (CFTC and DOJ) against Arizona's enforcement of its gambling laws on Kalshi?

AThe CFTC and DOJ argue that the contracts offered by Kalshi, which are tied to sports, elections, and other real-world events, qualify as financial derivatives (swaps) under U.S. federal law, specifically the Commodity Exchange Act. They contend that these contracts, because they are settled on future events with economic impact, fall under federal jurisdiction and preempt state gambling statutes.

QWhat specific legal measures are the federal agencies requesting from the court regarding Arizona's case against Kalshi?

AThe Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Justice Department (DOJ) are asking the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt Arizona's criminal case and its enforcement of gambling laws against Kalshi.

QAccording to the article, what was the recent ruling by the Third Circuit court regarding sports event contracts on designated contract markets (DCMs)?

AA recent Third Circuit ruling stated that sports event contracts on designated contract markets (DCMs) are considered 'swaps,' which preempts state gambling laws. However, one judge dissented, calling Kalshi's stance a 'performative sleight' designed to disguise what is essentially sports betting.

QBesides Kalshi, which other major prediction market platform is facing significant legal challenges, and what are some examples?

AKalshi's main rival, Polymarket, is also under significant legal pressure. A New York class action lawsuit was filed in February alleging it runs an unlicensed sports-betting operation. Regulators in Nevada have launched a civil case against its parent company, and authorities in Ohio, Utah, and Iowa are probing the platform. It was also completely banned in Argentina.

QWhat are the two potential future scenarios for U.S. prediction markets outlined at the end of the article, depending on the legal outcome?

AIf federal preemption is upheld, it would de-risk U.S. prediction venues, potentially boosting their liquidity and attractiveness as trading tools. Conversely, if states successfully classify these markets as gambling, the markets may fragment and move offshore or into on-chain venues that are harder to police, thereby raising operational and legal risks for traders.

Related Reads

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Bitcoin prices declined 13% this week, reversing the recent rebound and signaling a likely transition into the later stages of a bear market. Key on-chain metrics deteriorated, with the short-term holder cost basis falling below the Realized Price—a pattern last seen in early 2022, characteristic of bear market maturity. The rally to ~$82k proved to be a bear market bounce, as evidenced by the 90-day realized profit/loss ratio failing to sustain above the bullish threshold of 2. Daily realized losses surged to $1.35B, including significant selling from long-term holders who accumulated near cycle tops, indicating ongoing supply redistribution. Price was rejected almost precisely at the aggregate US spot ETF cost basis of ~$83k, turning that level into resistance and leaving the average ETF investor underwater again. Spot market selling pressure intensified, with the 7-day volume delta turning significantly negative to its weakest level since February. While a major long liquidation event cleared over $400M in leverage, spot demand has not yet stepped in to absorb the resulting supply. Options markets continue pricing in higher future volatility (elevated volatility risk premium) and maintain a skew toward put options, reflecting persistent demand for downside protection, though not yet panic. Overall, market structure remains fragile. Sustained recovery likely requires a reclaim of the ETF cost basis, a shift back to positive spot demand, and a slowdown in realized loss-taking. Until then, the market risks further downside or extended consolidation within the broader bear trend.

Foresight News50m ago

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Foresight News50m ago

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight News1h ago

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight News1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片