Polymarket Faces New Roadblock As Dutch Regulator Bans Prediction Activity — Details

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-02-22Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-22

Анотація

Polymarket's Dutch operations, under the entity Adventure One, have been ordered to cease all activities by the Netherlands Gambling Authority (Ksa) for offering unlicensed prediction markets, which the regulator classifies as illegal gambling. The platform faces potential fines of up to $840,000 per week for non-compliance. This action is the latest regulatory challenge for Polymarket, creating a conflict between US federal approval and state-level scrutiny. The news coincides with a recent parliamentary proposal in the Netherlands to introduce a controversial 36% tax on unrealized gains from cryptocurrencies and other investments, a move critics warn could drive investors out of the country.

According to recent reports, the Dutch arm of the prediction markets platform Polymarket has been asked to cease its activities in the Netherlands. This order comes as the latest regulatory blow dealt to the prediction market platform in recent weeks.

Dutch Regulator Threatens Polymarket With $840,000 Fine

In a notice dated Tuesday, February 17, the Netherlands Gambling Authority ordered Polymarket’s Dutch arm, Adventure One, to “cease its activities immediately” or risk incurring up to $840,000 in fines per week. According to the Dutch regulator, Adventure One offered illegal bets, including on the local elections, to residents without a license.

While prediction markets do not particularly fall into the traditional gambling category, the Netherlands Gambling Authority has classified them as betting. The regulator revealed that it contacted Polymarket about its activities on the Dutch market, but have seen no corrective action or response from the prediction markets company.

Netherlands Gambling Authority’s director of licensing and supervision, Ella Seijsener, said in the notice:

Prediction markets are on the rise, including in the Netherlands. These types of companies offer bets that are not permitted in our market under any circumstances, not even by license holders. Besides the social risks of these kinds of predictions (for example, the potential influence on elections), we conclude that this constitutes illegal gambling. Anyone without a Ksa license has no business in our market. This also applies to these new gambling platforms.

This restriction in the Netherlands marks the latest stumbling block for Polymarket in terms of regulation over the past few months. Despite receiving approvals from the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), individual state authorities have placed significant scrutiny on the activities of prediction market platforms.

This has led to an issue of jurisdiction, as the CFTC chair criticized the state-level scrutiny which undermines their federal authority over prediction markets.

Dutch Unrealized Gains Tax On Crypto Rolls On

This crackdown on prediction markets comes just a week after the Dutch House of Representatives advanced a proposal to introduce a 36% capital gains tax on most liquid investments, including cryptocurrencies. This controversial bill, if passed, would see profits made from interest-bearing financial instruments, equity investments, cryptocurrencies, and savings accounts be subject to tax, whether realized or not.

The proposal of this capital gains tax led to interesting reactions, with several crypto analysts noting that the legislation will drive investors out of the Netherlands. “To be honest, the fact that there’s the unrealized gains tax for Bitcoin in the Netherlands is the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a long time. The amount of people willing to flee the country is going to be bananas,” analyst Michaël van de Poppe said on X.

The price of BTC on the daily timeframe | Source: BTCUSDT chart on TradingView

Пов'язані питання

QWhat action did the Dutch Gambling Authority take against Polymarket's Dutch arm, Adventure One?

AThe Dutch Gambling Authority ordered Adventure One to cease its activities immediately or face fines of up to $840,000 per week.

QWhat was the primary reason given by the Dutch regulator for banning Polymarket's activities?

AThe regulator classified Polymarket's prediction markets as illegal gambling, stating they offered bets that are not permitted in the Dutch market without a license, including on events like local elections.

QHow did the director of licensing, Ella Seijsener, justify the crackdown on prediction markets?

AElla Seijsener stated that prediction markets offer illegal bets, pose social risks such as potential influence on elections, and constitute illegal gambling that requires a license to operate in the Netherlands.

QWhat recent tax proposal in the Netherlands has also impacted the crypto space?

AThe Dutch House of Representatives advanced a proposal to introduce a 36% capital gains tax on most liquid investments, including cryptocurrencies, taxing both realized and unrealized gains.

QWhat concern did crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe raise about the proposed Dutch tax on unrealized crypto gains?

AMichaël van de Poppe called the tax 'the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a long time' and predicted that it would cause a significant number of people to flee the country.

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit25 хв тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit25 хв 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.

marsbit1 год тому

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

marsbit1 год 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.

marsbit2 год тому

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片