US Regulator Warns Prediction Markets Against Simplifying Terms in Event Contracts

cryptonews.ruPublicado em 2026-07-27Última atualização em 2026-07-27

Resumo

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which positions itself as the leading regulator of prediction markets run by companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, issued a warning on Friday. It reminded these companies that they must not simplify the certification procedure for event contracts covering a wide range of topics. The CFTC stated that companies should not submit general, template certifications, marking the second time in recent months the regulator has warned against overly broad filings. The agency noted that many designated contract markets continue to self-certify event contracts using generic templates without providing the terms for each specific offering or a proper analysis of the product's compliance. The regulator warned that circumventing the proper procedure undermines its ability to determine if a firm has provided all necessary information and adequately assessed the settlement methodology and data sources for all contract options. However, the CFTC clarified that closely related event contracts can be certified as a single class, referencing legitimate ways to file consolidated documents. The explosive growth of the event contract market, especially in sports betting and political outcome prediction, presents a dynamic regulatory challenge. This is due to the industry's relative inexperience and ongoing legal uncertainty about the CFTC's regulatory status. The CFTC's role as the primary regulator is itself facing legal challenges, with cour...

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which positions itself as the leading regulator of prediction markets managed by companies like Kalshi, Coinbase, Polymarket, and Crypto.com, issued a warning on Friday reminding these companies that simplifying the contract certification procedure covering a wide range of events is not permissible.

The agency stated that 'general, template certificates should not be submitted,' marking the second instance in recent months where the regulator had to caution against overly generalized documents.

Many of the 'designated contract markets' regulated by the CFTC 'continue to self-certify event contracts' (in other words, prediction market contracts) using general templates, 'without providing the terms for each offered combination, as well as a brief explanation and analysis of the product terms, underlying commodity, and the product’s compliance with requirements,' the agency said in a statement.

The regulator stated that bypassing the procedure could undermine its ability to determine whether a firm has provided 'all necessary information, explanations, and analysis,' as well as whether it has 'adequately assessed the settlement methodology, data sources, and compliance with the core principles of all contract options.'

Nevertheless, the agency clarified that 'closely related event contracts may be certified as a single class,' citing legitimate ways to submit consolidated filings with common appendices.

The explosive growth of the event contract market - particularly in the areas of sports betting and political outcome prediction - to some extent represents a situation requiring an on-the-fly solution, given the relative inexperience of much of the industry and the uncertainty of the CFTC's legal status.

The CFTC's status as the primary regulator of prediction markets itself still faces some legal uncertainty, which is expected to be resolved by the courts - perhaps at some point by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the regulator's chairman, Mike Selig, has made it an agency priority to wage a full-scale battle in state and federal courts across the country, insisting that the CFTC bears sole responsibility for overseeing event contract platforms, a large number of states are pursuing these companies on charges of illegal sports betting, which should be regulated at the state level.

Also on Friday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a notice extending the regulatory status of the Kraken platform, the Kraken Derivatives Exchange, which had been in 'inactive' status. The last trade on this exchange was made in early 2025, and the CFTC's approval of the company's request means 'granting the registered entity the opportunity to resume operations.' Kraken stated that it needs more time to evaluate its next steps following the acquisition of Bitnomial earlier this year.

end-content

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhich U.S. regulator issued a warning about simplifying event contract certifications?

AThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued the warning.

QWhat specific practice did the CFTC warn prediction market companies against in their certification process?

AThe CFTC warned companies against filing general, template certificates for event contracts without providing terms, explanations, and analysis for each specific contract combination offered.

QWhat potential problem does the CFTC say is caused by the 'template' certification approach?

AIt undermines the CFTC's ability to determine if a firm has provided all necessary information and adequately assessed the settlement methodology, data sources, and compliance of all contract options.

QWhat legal uncertainty surrounds the CFTC's role as the main regulator of prediction markets, according to the article?

AThe CFTC's status as the primary regulator faces legal uncertainty, with disputes expected to be resolved in courts (potentially the U.S. Supreme Court), as many states pursue these companies for what they claim are illegal sports bets under state-level oversight.

QWhat other regulatory action did the CFTC take on the same Friday, as mentioned in the article?

AThe CFTC issued a notice extending the regulatory status of the 'inactive' Kraken Derivatives Exchange platform, allowing the entity to resume activities if it chooses.

Leituras Relacionadas

A Brief History of the Lithography Machine: How a Beam of Light Walked Sixty-Nine Years

A Brief History of Lithography: 69 Years of Light In July 2026, reports of a Chinese state-backed company producing five immersion DUV lithography machines sent shockwaves through Wall Street, wiping roughly $44 billion from ASML's market cap in a single day. This event signaled a crack in the long-held assumption of Western monopoly over advanced chipmaking equipment. The journey began in 1957 when Jay Lathrop coined the term "photolithography." Early contact aligners (1960s) gave way to PerkinElmer's revolutionary projection aligners in 1973, boosting yields dramatically. GCA's step-and-repeat system (1978) established the modern stepper blueprint. However, within a decade, Japanese firms like Nikon and Canon, supported by a strong domestic market, captured nearly 90% of the global market from American pioneers, who ultimately exited the business. ASML, founded in a leaky shed in 1984, rose to dominance through key strategic moves: the TWINSCAN dual-stage platform (2001) and the acquisition of SVG, gaining access to Intel. A pivotal moment came in the early 2000s with the industry at a 193nm wavelength impasse. While most invested in the costly 157nm path, TSMC's Burn Lin proposed immersion lithography—using water between the lens and wafer. ASML bet on this simpler idea and, with Zeiss, delivered the first commercial immersion tool in 2004, effectively ending the 157nm roadmap and leaving competitors behind. The subsequent push for Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography was an even greater marathon. Deemed the least promising option in 1997, EUV's development, led by ASML, required vacuum chambers, reflective optics, and a complex tin-droplet laser plasma source. Critical to its eventual success (first high-volume manufacturing in 2018) was the 2012 "Customer Co-Investment Program," where Intel, TSMC, and Samsung provided upfront funding and equity, sharing the immense risk and cost. Today, ASML holds a near-total monopoly in EUV and immersion DUV. The core lesson of this 69-year history is not merely one of technological invention but of sustained partnership. Successive leaders—PerkinElmer, GCA, Nikon—were not ultimately defeated by superior technology but by losing the vital connection to customers willing to tolerate years of iteration, fund long-term R&D, and integrate early, imperfect tools into their production lines. The "light" that completed the journey was always carried by those patient, invested partners.

marsbitHá 44m

A Brief History of the Lithography Machine: How a Beam of Light Walked Sixty-Nine Years

marsbitHá 44m

Trading

Spot
活动图片