Prediction Market ETFs: A Foray into the Mainstream or Playing with Fire?

Odaily星球日报Publicado em 2026-02-22Última atualização em 2026-02-22

Resumo

A new wave of ETF applications has been submitted to the SEC by asset managers including Bitwise, GraniteShares, and Roundhill Investments. These ETFs aim to track the outcomes of U.S. political elections—such as the 2028 presidential race and 2026 midterm control of Congress—by packaging prediction market contracts into tradable securities. This would allow mainstream investors to use traditional brokerage accounts to bet on electoral results, similar to platforms like Polymarket or Kalshi, but within the regulated financial system. Prediction markets aggregate crowd-sourced probabilities through financial incentives, often demonstrating stronger predictive accuracy than traditional polls, as seen during the 2024 U.S. election. The proposed ETFs would reflect binary event probabilities, with share prices fluctuating between $0 and $1. If the predicted outcome occurs, the ETF value approaches $1; otherwise, it nears zero. Most funds would liquidate after the event settles. This move could significantly broaden participation and liquidity, potentially making prediction markets a tool for hedging policy risks or macro strategies. However, it also raises regulatory and ethical concerns, including potential market influence on public perception and the risk of manipulation. The SEC’s approval remains uncertain, as it may view these products as blurring the line between investing and gambling. The outcome of these applications could signal a major shift in how probabilistic even...

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | DingDang (@XiaMiPP)

Recently, ETF issuers Bitwise Asset Management and GraniteShares have filed applications with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for prediction market ETFs. Among them, Bitwise submitted six products under the "PredictionShares" brand, and GraniteShares quickly followed with a similarly structured proposal. A bit earlier, on February 13th, Roundhill Investments also filed documents for a similar type of product.

The core of these ETFs is tracking the outcomes of U.S. political elections. They attempt to package the "probability of outcomes" of U.S. political elections into a financial product that can be traded directly in traditional securities accounts. Specifically, the underlying focus is on the 2028 presidential election (whether the Democrat or Republican wins) and which party will control the Senate and House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections.

In other words, investors in the future might no longer need to go to the crypto world's Polymarket or register with the CFTC-regulated Kalshi; they could simply open their Robinhood or Fidelity account and place a bet on "who will win the White House" just like buying a stock.

Screenshot from @jason_chen998

What does this leap forward signify?

Why Do Prediction Markets Always Seem "One Step Ahead"?

The "foresight" of prediction markets regarding political events is hardly news anymore.

A prediction market is essentially a group of people using real money to express judgments. Participants buy and sell "Yes/No" contracts to express their confidence in an event occurring. The prices of these contracts fluctuate between $0 and $1, representing the market's consensus on probability. For example, if you believe a candidate has a 70% chance of winning, you might buy a "Yes" contract for $0.70. If the event happens, the contract's value rises to $1; otherwise, it becomes worthless.

This is a form of crowd judgment weighted by capital. Unlike mere verbal expression, participants must bear the consequences of profit and loss for their judgments. The 2024 U.S. election was a concentrated example. At that time, trading volumes on Polymarket and Kalshi surged rapidly, with political contracts becoming the absolute mainstay. Before election day, the cumulative trading volume on Polymarket for the single market "2024 Presidential Election Winner" was approximately $3.7 billion. Kalshi, a later entrant, won a key lawsuit against the CFTC in September 2024, allowing it to legally offer election-related contracts. By November, its monthly trading volume reached $127 million, with about 89% coming from politics and election markets.

More noteworthy is the signal the data itself conveyed. Weeks before the 2024 election, the probability of a Trump victory on Polymarket stabilized above 60%, while mainstream polls showed a tight race, sometimes even with Harris slightly ahead. The result? The prediction market seemed to "read" the election situation early.

This doesn't mean prediction markets are "magically accurate," but across multiple election cycles, they have indeed demonstrated a strong ability to aggregate information. Research has found that, with sufficient liquidity and broad participation, the statistical performance of prediction markets often surpasses that of traditional poll samples. The older platform PredictIt has also been repeatedly regarded as an effective information aggregator. In contrast, traditional polls are susceptible to factors like sample bias and response bias.

The root of the difference lies in the incentive structure: polls express attitudes, prediction markets entail bearing consequences. The former has no cost, the latter has clear profits and losses. This structural difference determines the different ways information is processed.

Although prediction markets cooled down significantly after the election—Polymarket's daily trading volume plummeted by about 84% after the results were announced—the number of prediction market projects grew rapidly entering 2025. Now, in 2026, data from predictionindex.xyz shows there are as many as 137 prediction market projects, with the leading player, Polymarket, having a total trading volume exceeding $50 billion and a monthly trading volume of $8 billion.

From a fringe experiment to a mainstream sector, prediction markets are a far cry from what they once were. Now, imagine if participation could be made easy through ETFs; this collective intelligence could influence public perception of political events even more widely.

How ETFs Package Prediction Markets

So, how are these ETFs bringing the玩法 (gameplay) of prediction markets to Wall Street?

What these issuers are doing is essentially translating the contract prices of prediction markets into a product structure understandable by the securities market. Dressed in the cloak of an ETF, it allows you to buy and sell through a正规 (formal) brokerage account, but you're still betting on the outcome of a political event.

Taking the six ETFs filed by Bitwise as an example, four directly target the 2028 presidential election (Democrat/Republican win), and the remaining two correspond to control of the Senate and House in the 2026 midterm elections. The structures from GraniteShares and Roundhill are largely similar. Simply put, these ETFs directly map the price performance of those binary event contracts on Kalshi or Polymarket into tradable ETF shares.

Mechanically, the share price of these ETFs will fluctuate between $0 and $1, reflecting the market's real-time consensus on the event's likelihood. The funds will invest at least 80% of their assets in derivatives linked to these political events, such as contracts obtained from CFTC-approved exchanges like Kalshi, or synthetic swaps to mimic the performance. The buying process is the same as buying a stock: through brokerage accounts like Robinhood or Fidelity, with expected expense ratios between 0.5% and 1%, and the trading venue being NYSE Arca.

At settlement, if the event occurs (e.g., Democrat wins the presidential election), the corresponding "Yes" ETF's value approaches $1; otherwise, it approaches $0. Bitwise's plan is for the fund to liquidate and terminate shortly after the event outcome is determined, distributing the remaining assets proportionally to holders; some products from GraniteShares and Roundhill are more "flexible," potentially allowing a "roll" into the next election cycle.

Compared to the Bitcoin ETFs we are familiar with, there is a clear distinction here. Bitcoin ETFs like BlackRock's IBIT track the price of Bitcoin, with unlimited upside or downside potential, suitable as part of an asset allocation. Prediction market ETFs, however, lean more towards binary probability bets, with a cap fixed at $1, similar to buying insurance or options—winner takes all, loser loses everything.

The question is, when probability becomes a tradable asset, is it still merely an information aggregation mechanism?

Mainstreaming, or Gamblification?

If these ETFs are approved, prediction markets will truly enter the mainstream financial view.

Currently, political prediction markets are still concentrated among crypto users or professional traders. Once ETFs go live, the participation barrier for institutional capital and traditional investors will be significantly lowered. Companies might use them to hedge against policy change risks, and portfolio managers might see them as macro risk management tools. Liquidity will be amplified, and price signals might become sharper.

But the problems on the other side are equally obvious. The 2024 election already proved that prediction market prices are cited by media, amplified on social platforms, and even influence public sentiment. When probability is packaged as "market consensus," it can easily be interpreted as an objective trend. If the scale of capital expands further, could there be deliberate attempts to manipulate prices to influence public opinion? PredictIt was embroiled in legal disputes in its early days due to compliance issues; such concerns are not unfounded.

Regulation remains the biggest uncertainty. The SEC might worry that this is essentially the "gamblification" of finance, increasing the risk of manipulation or moral hazard. The approval process might come with conditions, such as trading limits or additional disclosures. Currently, the CFTC has allowed Kalshi to trade election futures, which is a positive signal, but the SEC's stance remains unclear.

Conclusion

From crypto-native markets to Wall Street ETFs, prediction markets are undergoing an identity transformation. However, before the regulatory framework is clear, the moves by issuers seem more like a probe. They are testing regulatory boundaries and also testing the market's acceptance of "probability as an asset."

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core function of the prediction market ETFs recently filed with the SEC by Bitwise and GraniteShares?

AThe core function is to track the outcome probabilities of U.S. political elections, such as the 2028 presidential election and the 2026 midterm elections, packaging these probabilities into tradable financial products.

QHow do prediction markets differ from traditional polls in terms of accuracy and incentives?

APrediction markets use real-money stakes where participants bear financial consequences for their judgments, leading to more accurate information aggregation. Traditional polls rely on expressed attitudes without financial incentives, making them prone to sample and expression biases.

QWhat mechanism do these ETFs use to translate prediction market contracts into tradable securities?

AThe ETFs map the price movements of binary event contracts (e.g., from CFTC-approved exchanges like Kalshi) onto ETF shares, with prices fluctuating between $0 and $1 to reflect real-time market consensus on event probabilities.

QWhat are the potential risks associated with mainstreaming prediction markets through ETFs?

ARisks include the potential for market manipulation to influence public opinion, moral hazards, and regulatory uncertainties, as the SEC may view these products as akin to gambling rather than legitimate financial instruments.

QHow did prediction markets perform during the 2024 U.S. presidential election compared to traditional polls?

APrediction markets like Polymarket showed Trump's win probability consistently above 60% weeks before the election, while traditional polls indicated a tight race or a slight lead for Harris, demonstrating the markets' superior information aggregation capabilities.

Leituras 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.

marsbitHá 7h

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHá 7h

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Há 7h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Há 7h

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.

marsbitHá 10h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHá 10h

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Há 11h

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

链捕手Há 11h

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?

marsbitHá 12h

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

marsbitHá 12h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片