Dutch Regulator Orders Polymarket to Halt Betting Services

TheNewsCryptoОпубліковано о 2026-02-21Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-21

Анотація

The Netherlands Gambling Authority has ordered Polymarket's Dutch affiliate, Adventure One, to immediately halt its unlicensed betting services in the country. The platform, which allowed users to place bets on events like local elections, faces potential fines of up to $990,000 for non-compliance. This action highlights the regulatory clash surrounding prediction markets, which offer wagers not permitted under Dutch law, even for licensed operators. The enforcement occurs amid broader debates on digital asset regulations in the Netherlands, including a proposed capital gains tax on cryptocurrencies. This case underscores the ongoing tension between rapidly growing prediction markets and national gambling frameworks across various jurisdictions.

The Netherlands Gambling Authority has ordered its Dutch affiliate, Adventure One, to put a stop to providing betting services to natives without permission, marking a move against prediction markets platform Polymarket.

As per the notice released on February 17, the regulator mentioned that the company must ban its activities quickly or risk penalties of up to $990,000. Officials mentioned that the platform permitted users in the Netherlands to place bets banned under national law, comprising contracts associated with local elections, and had not replied to previous requests from authorities to address the issue.

Ella Seijsener, the director of licensing and supervision of the authority, said that prediction markets are increasing, including in the Netherlands. She also mentioned that such operators offer wagers that aren’t permitted in the Dutch market under any circumstances, even for licensed gambling firms.

At the beginning of this year, the CLO of the company, Neal Kumar, mentioned the company was open to discussions with regulators while US federal courts look for questions over oversight of prediction markets.

The Hold of The Operations

The debate reflects wider regulatory tension around event-based contracts. In the US, platforms providing similar products have drawn investigation from state authorities, many of which claim the services look like sports betting.

Meanwhile, leadership at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has pushed back against state interference, saying it has federal jurisdiction over prediction market activity. The enforcement action also comes as Dutch policymakers debate tighter regulations impacting digital assets.

The House of Representatives of the country has progressed a proposal rolling out a 36% capital gains tax on some investments, a measure anticipated to cover cryptocurrencies if approved.

Currently, the order of the regulator has placed Polymarket’s operations in the Netherlands on hold, underscoring how quickly increasing prediction markets are hitting with national gambling frameworks over various jurisdictions.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

OFFICIAL TRUMP (TRUMP) Slides to $3: Hold the Line or Head for Deeper Losses?

TagsDutchNetherlandsPolymarket

Пов'язані питання

QWhat action did the Netherlands Gambling Authority take against Polymarket's Dutch affiliate?

AThe Netherlands Gambling Authority ordered its Dutch affiliate, Adventure One, to stop providing betting services to Dutch residents without permission.

QWhat potential financial penalty does Polymarket face for non-compliance with the order?

APolymarket faces potential fines of up to $990,000 if it does not quickly ban its activities in the Netherlands.

QAccording to the regulator, what type of bets did Polymarket allow that are prohibited under Dutch law?

AThe platform permitted users to place bets banned under national law, including contracts associated with local elections.

QHow has the regulatory action affected Polymarket's operations in the Netherlands?

AThe order has placed Polymarket's operations in the Netherlands on hold.

QWhat broader regulatory development in the Netherlands is mentioned alongside this enforcement action?

ADutch policymakers are debating tighter regulations impacting digital assets, including a proposal for a 36% capital gains tax on some investments that would cover cryptocurrencies if approved.

Пов'язані матеріали

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit41 хв тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit41 хв тому

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit54 хв тому

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit54 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片