Nasdaq Ventures into Prediction Markets: Wall Street Bets on Tech Index with 'Yes or No'

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-03-03Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-03

Анотація

Nasdaq has filed a proposal with the SEC to launch binary options, or "outcome-related options," on its flagship Nasdaq-100 and Nasdaq-100 Micro indexes. These contracts allow investors to make "yes or no" predictions on whether specific conditions will be met by the index at expiration. Priced between $0.01 and $1.00, the contract value reflects the perceived probability of the outcome—settling at $1 if true and $0 if false. This simplifies trading to a direct bet on event outcomes, rather than price movements. The Nasdaq-100, heavily weighted toward major tech stocks like Apple and Nvidia, is highly sensitive to market sentiment, making it an ideal underlying asset for such products. This move signals traditional exchanges' growing interest in prediction markets. Unlike the Intercontinental Exchange's recent strategic investment in Polymarket, Nasdaq is directly integrating predictive structures into its existing product lineup. If approved, this would mark a significant step in bringing prediction-based trading into the regulated mainstream financial system, blending traditional derivatives with event-driven speculation.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Asher (@Asher_ 0210)

Last night, Nasdaq Inc. submitted a rule change proposal to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), planning to introduce an options contract that allows investors to make "yes or no" judgments on major stock indices.

According to the document, Nasdaq intends to list "binary options," also known as "outcome-related options," on its flagship products—the Nasdaq 100 Index and the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index. If approved, this would mark Nasdaq's first official foray into products with prediction market attributes.

This move signifies that traditional stock exchange giants are actively entering the rapidly growing prediction market sector.

What Are Binary Options?

The proposed contracts have a pricing range of 1 cent to 1 dollar, with the price itself directly reflecting the market's judgment of the probability of a specific outcome.

For example, if a contract is based on whether "the Nasdaq 100 Index meets a certain condition at a specific time point," then:

  • If the market believes the probability of this outcome is 80%, the price might be close to $0.80;
  • If the condition is met at expiration, the contract settles at $1;
  • If the condition is not met, the contract value becomes zero.

If traditional options are about betting on "how much it will rise or fall," binary options are more concerned with "whether it will happen." There are no complex parameters, no interval calculations—only the outcome itself. This all-or-nothing settlement method makes trading more like making a clear judgment about the future.

Because of this, such products are closer in form to the logic of prediction markets.

Why Choose the Nasdaq 100?

Nasdaq's choice is not an ordinary index but one of the most sentiment-sensitive assets. The Nasdaq 100 has long been regarded as a core indicator of the U.S. technology sector, with concentrated holdings in heavyweight companies like Apple, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta. These companies almost always become market focal points each quarter. An earnings report, a regulatory update, or even a policy statement can quickly reflect in the index's movement.

The high concentration of components means that the Nasdaq 100's trends often revolve around a single focus. The market might bet on AI expectations for a period, then shift to interest rate paths or policy changes. During earnings or policy-intensive periods, the index typically reflects market judgments in a relatively short time rather than prolonged back-and-forth fluctuations.

Additionally, the Nasdaq 100 itself has a mature derivatives trading foundation, ample liquidity, and a well-established pricing system. Introducing new structured products on this underlying asset is risk-controllable and more likely to gain market acceptance.

Two Ways Traditional Exchanges Are Entering the Market

Nasdaq is not the first traditional exchange to show interest in prediction markets. In October 2025, Intercontinental Exchange, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, announced a strategic investment of approximately $2 billion in Polymarket, acquiring about a 20% stake, with the transaction valuation once reaching around $8 billion.

The NYSE's choice was not to launch its own prediction products but to enter the field through capital participation and data cooperation. Its core intention is to obtain real-time probability data formed by prediction markets and incorporate it into institutional service systems. For the NYSE, prediction markets are more like supplementary sentiment indicators and data assets.

In contrast, Nasdaq's approach is more direct. It chooses to embed binary structures into its core index product line, extending within the existing trading framework. Compared to investing in external prediction market platforms, this method means predictive trading is incorporated into the standardized securities product system, rather than being just an external data source.

The difference in strategies reflects the varying judgments of traditional exchanges when facing new trading structures.

Prediction Markets Are Being Integrated into Traditional Exchange Product Systems

Regardless of whether the SEC ultimately approves this proposal, Nasdaq's submission of the rule change application itself sends a clear signal—predictive trading is no longer just an experiment on crypto platforms or niche markets but is beginning to be integrated into traditional exchange product systems.

For a long time, mainstream derivatives have revolved around price fluctuations, with investors judging the magnitude and timing of rises and falls through different structures. Binary options simplify the question to whether the outcome will occur, shifting the trading focus from magnitude to the conclusion itself.

When the Nasdaq 100 Index is incorporated into such contract structures, the trading logic becomes more direct. The market's focus is no longer on the magnitude of fluctuations but on whether a specific outcome will materialize. The price reflects not just volatility but the consensus on the probability of the outcome.

For Nasdaq, this is an extension of its product line. For prediction market, it is the beginning of its structure being formally accepted by the mainstream system. If this product eventually launches, it could become a bridging attempt between traditional derivatives and event-based trading.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the new type of option contract that Nasdaq has proposed to the SEC?

ANasdaq has proposed a 'binary option' or 'outcome-related option' contract that allows investors to make 'yes or no' judgments on major stock indices.

QWhich specific indices will the new binary options be based on if approved?

AThe binary options will be based on the Nasdaq 100 Index and the Nasdaq 100 Micro Index.

QHow does the pricing of these binary options reflect market expectations?

AThe price, ranging from 1 cent to 1 dollar, directly reflects the market's judgment of the probability of a specific outcome. For example, a price of $0.80 indicates an 80% probability that the condition will be met.

QWhat is the key difference between traditional options and these new binary options?

ATraditional options focus on 'how much' the price will move, while binary options focus on 'whether' a specific outcome will happen, with a simple all-or-nothing settlement.

QHow does Nasdaq's approach to entering the prediction market differ from that of the New York Stock Exchange's parent company?

ANasdaq is directly integrating binary structures into its core index products, while NYSE's parent, Intercontinental Exchange, made a strategic investment in an external prediction market platform, Polymarket, to gain access to real-time probability data.

Пов'язані матеріали

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1 год тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 год тому

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.

marsbit3 год тому

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

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片