Author: Simi Awe

Prediction Market Monday: More Than One Simple Market

by Simi Awe

Most people think of prediction markets as simple yes-or-no predictions on whether an event will occur. In reality, these markets are far more complex. They include a variety of contract types, market designs, and even different forms of currency. Below, we break down the main types of prediction markets and explain their purposes.

Contract Types

There are three main types of contracts: binary, index, and spread. Binary contracts are the most common and well-known. For these contracts, traders make yes or no trades on their predicted outcome of an event. This contract can help to show the probability of an event occurring based on market expectations. For index contracts, the payout varies continuously based on the value of a numerical outcome. A common example is the percentage of votes Trump receives in the presidential election. Index contracts show the market’s expectation of the value, mean, of the event with investors split into buckets of potential outcomes. Lastly, spread contracts are binary contracts where a person can invest in a specific event outcome both occurring and exceeding a certain threshold and the cutoff. The profit or loss would deviate based on how close the trader got to the actual outcome. An example of this type of contract is that President Trump will win 66% of the popular vote. Spread contracts show the market’s expectation of the median. This contract type rewards the forecasting accuracy of a trader over mere direction.

Market Design

The type of market design used by a prediction market impacts the liquidity, distributions of winnings, and capital choices. Continuous double-action design is similar to the stock market, as it matches buyers and sellers when the bid and asking price align. The market maintains a ledger to catalog the trades to ensure all contracts are correctly paid out. This style of market is conducive to high-activity markets with frequent trading and allows people to move in and out of investment positions based on the current market price. This peer-to-peer style can often be supplemented by automatic market makers, who can act as counterparties to both sides of trades, while making money by arbitraging different market values and taking fees on spreads. This approach helps provide liquidity in markets where there are not enough buyers or sellers at a given time, ensuring that participants can virtually always find a willing buyer or seller at around the then-current market prices. Pari-mutuel payouts occur when all investments are pooled together into one pot and then are divided out amongst the winners in proportion to the size of their investment.

Currency

The most common type of currency used in prediction markets is real currency, defined as actual assets or money. It is typically used because it incentivizes traders to make accurate predictions. More recently, some markets have begun using platform-specific tokens or coins, where payouts or incentives are awarded based on the number of tokens earned. There are advantages to using platform-specific tokens over real currency, as they lower the barrier to entry and can increase participation and liquidity.

If you have any questions, please reach out to policy@digitalchamber.org. 

Prediction Market Monday: The History of Prediction Markets

by Simi Awe

Prediction markets in the United States can be traced back to the 1800s, when they were primarily focused on election outcomes. These hedging pools were organized on Wall Street directly outside of the New York Stock Exchange and posted alongside election news. They were seen as the most accurate forecasters.

1988

In 1988, at the University of Iowa, the Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) was launched as a research tool to study the ability of small financial bets to forecast election outcomes. In a 2008 study, IEM data was found to outperform national polls 74% of the time. The next prediction market to launch was InTrade in 2001. It became the most prominent market of its time, correctly predicting Obama’s 2008 victory. Its success was cut short when it was sued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for offering commodity options to U.S. customers without proper registration. This case warned other markets about the importance of regulatory compliance.

2010

In 2010, under the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress extended the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over “agreements…and transactions involving swaps.” In 2014, PredictIt filled the gap left by InTrade. Its contracts focused on U.S. politics and operated under the guidance of a no-action letter from the CFTC. This letter allowed it to function, similar to the IEM, as a research tool using real-money trading. Despite the limitations of the no-action letter, PredictIt began to grow. During this period of growth for prediction markets, Augur launched the first blockchain-based prediction market. While there were initial challenges due to low liquidity, it laid out the groundwork for integrating blockchain technology with prediction markets.

2020

In 2020, the CFTC adopted a new regulatory approach to prediction markets, shifting from a primarily research-based framework to full approval under the designation of a contract market (DCM). Kalshi became the first prediction market to receive this approval. As part of this shift away from the research-based model, the CFTC withdrew PredictIt’s no-action letter.

This “open-arms” policy shifted in 2023, when the CFTC sought to restrict Kalshi from offering event contracts based on election outcomes. Kalshi challenged this decision in court and won. With a change in administration in 2025 that was more favorable toward prediction markets, the number of markets increased, and total market volume exceeded $50 billion by the end of the year. While at the federal level, governments were paving the way for prediction markets, the states in 2025 began to send cease-and-desists and sue CFTC-registered companies like Kalshi, claiming the contracts they offered trading on constituted “gambling” under state gaming laws. This began an over-year-long battle in the courts, that is still occurring, over whether event contracts are swaps, thus under exclusive federal jurisdiction, or gambling, allowing for states to have jurisdiction. In an amicus response on February 17, 2026, in the U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, CFTC Chairman Mike Selig came out as saying prediction markets are swaps and thus fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. It remains unclear which way the courts will ultimately rule, and the issue may need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

If you have any questions, please reach out to policy@digitalchamber.org. 

TDC CEO Testifies at Senate Banking Hearing Entitled: The Affordability Agenda

by Simi Awe

Cody Carbone
Chief Executive Officer, The Digital Chamber
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Hearing Entitled: “The Affordability Agenda”
Tuesday, June 23, 2026


Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Warren, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Cody Carbone, and I serve as Chief Executive Officer of The Digital Chamber, the world’s largest digital asset and blockchain trade association. Founded in 2014, our members include more than 250 companies globally across the digital asset and blockchain ecosystem, including exchanges, custodians, infrastructure providers, banks, developers, investors, and emerging technology companies working to build a safer, more competitive, and more inclusive financial system.

I am here today to offer solutions to the challenge of affordability weighing on Americans. The cost of accessing, moving, saving, and investing money should not be a barrier to any of these basic economic activities. The goal of the digital asset industry is to make it as easy to send money as it is to send an email.

For too long, American consumers and small businesses have been forced to operate on financial rails that are slow, expensive, and often difficult to access. These costs rarely appear as a single line item on a receipt, but they show up everywhere: in the price of groceries, in fees charged to small businesses, in the cost of sending money to family abroad, in the delay between earning a paycheck and being able to use it, and in the thousands of dollars families
must pay to close on a home.

That is the hidden affordability problem digital assets can help solve.

Digital assets and blockchain technology will not, on their own, slow inflation, increase the housing supply or wages, or fix every cost pressure facing Americans. But they can reduce the impact of friction and fees and offer competitive alternatives across the global financial system.

This matters most for households with the least room for error. The Federal Reserve reported in May 2026 that only 63 percent of adults could cover a hypothetical $400 emergency expense using cash, savings, or the equivalent – meaning more than one-third could not do so without borrowing, selling something, or being unable to cover the expense at all. 1The same survey found that 59 percent of adults had at least one major unexpected expense in the prior 12 months, with major vehicle repairs, home or appliance repairs, and major medical expenses among the most common.2

The FDIC’s most recent national household survey found that 4.2 percent of U.S. households – approximately 5.6 million households – were unbanked in 2023, while another 14.2 percent – approximately 19 million households – were underbanked.3 These are the Americans most likely to rely on costly, high-interest stopgap measures such as check cashing, money orders, payday loans, pawn shops, and other nonbank financial services.

Even for banked consumers, delays and fees are real and costly. Consumers paid more than $5.8 billion in overdraft and nonsufficient-fund fees in 2023, even after many institutions reduced those charges from pre-pandemic levels.4 And under Regulation CC, funds from many local checks generally do not have to be made fully available until the second business day after deposit, with only the first $275 generally required to be available by the first business day.5 For a household living paycheck to paycheck, that delay is not an inconvenience. It is a cost.

Digital assets can help lower costs in three areas to directly address the challenge of affordability: cross-border payments, everyday merchant payments, and the transfer and ownership of assets.

First, digital assets can reduce the cost of cross-border money transfers.

The United States is the largest source of remittances in the world. The International Organization for Migration has reported that the United States has consistently been the top remittance-sending country, and World Bank bilateral estimates have placed U.S. outward remittance flows at approximately $200 billion in a recent year.

6Globally, remittances to lowand middle-income countries were estimated to reach $685 billion in 2024 and were forecast by
the World Bank to reach approximately $690 billion in 2025.7

The World Bank’s Remittance Prices Worldwide database reported that the global average cost of sending remittances was 6.36 percent in its latest available report, more than double the international target of 3 percent.8 At that price, a worker sending $200 home may lose more than $12 to fees before the money even reaches the intended recipient. Across hundreds of billions of dollars in global remittances, those fees represent a significant economic loss for working families.

The problem is that cross-border payments often depend on multiple parties, different systems, different time zones, currency conversion, compliance checks, and settlement processes that were not designed for the modern digital economy. GENIUS Act regulated US dollar-backed stablecoins can help reduce that friction.

A payment stablecoin can move value globally, around the clock, over blockchain-based infrastructure. While on-ramps, off-ramps, foreign exchange, compliance, custody, and wallet services may still involve costs, the underlying payment rail tends to be faster, more
transparent, and more efficient than many legacy cross-border systems.

The same problem affects American freelancers, contractors, and small businesses. For example, a designer in South Carolina working for a client in Europe, a software developer in Arizona paid by a company in Asia, or a manufacturer in Ohio paying an overseas supplier all face the same basic problem: global payments are slow and expensive, creating a burden on those working to innovate and grow much-needed jobs in their communities.

That is why business-to-business payments have become a fast-growing real-world use case for stablecoins. McKinsey estimated in February 2026 that B2B stablecoin payments accounted for roughly $226 billion, or about 60 percent of global stablecoin payment volume, and that B2B stablecoin payments had increased 733 percent year over year.9 Artemis, Castle Island Ventures, and Dragonfly similarly found significant growth in stablecoin payment activity, including B2B use cases such as treasury operations and cross-border settlement.10

Businesses are using these tools because the payment rails are secure and fast. Lower-cost cross-border payments make American workers and American businesses more competitive, and all American consumers deserve access to these innovations.


Second, digital assets can put competitive pressure on the cost of everyday payments.


Federal Reserve data show how central card payments have become to everyday commerce. In 2024, credit cards accounted for 35 percent of consumer payments by number, and debit cards accounted for another 30 percent. Cash accounted for 14 percent.11

The cost of accepting card payments is material. In a 2025 report, the Government Accountability Office found that selected federal entities collected approximately $43.6 billion from consumers using credit, debit, and other payment cards in fiscal year 2023 and paid approximately $784 million in related fees. Those fees equaled 1.8 percent of revenue, and interchange fees accounted for nearly 90 percent of the fees paid by those entities.12

Federal Reserve data also show that payment network fees are significant. In 2023, network fees to all parties in debit card transactions increased to $12.95 billion, and acquirers and merchants paid 64.9 percent of those network fees.13

For large businesses, payment acceptance costs are a major operating expense. For small businesses operating on thin margins, they can be especially difficult to absorb. And because payment costs are part of doing business, they can affect prices, margins, wages, investment, and consumer choice.

Blockchain-based payment rails can introduce another option.

A regulated dollar-backed stablecoin can settle faster and often at lower cost than many traditional payment methods. Stripe, for example, lists stablecoin payment acceptance at 1.5 percent of the transaction amount in U.S. dollars, including conversion to fiat, wallet and AML screening, fraud prevention, and gas sponsorship.14 Stripe has also stated that stablecoin transfers typically incur flat network fees, often measured in pennies, and that for certain
businesses, stablecoin payments can cost about half as much as other payment methods.15

Properly regulated dollar-backed stablecoins can allow certain payments to settle faster, with greater transparency, and with a different cost structure than legacy payment systems. They should not replace cards, cash, ACH, wire transfers, or other payment methods. Different payment methods serve different needs, and consumers should be empowered with the best choices possible for their individual needs and preferences.

A cheaper, faster, compliant payment rail can give merchants more choices. It can allow businesses to experiment with lower-cost payment options. It can create pressure for incumbent payment systems to improve. And over time, greater competition in payments can benefit consumers.

It is also consistent with the way American markets work best. When a new rail can move the same dollar more efficiently, the answer should not be to block it. The answer should be to regulate it properly, supervise it effectively, and allow responsible market participants to compete.

That competition matters for small businesses. A family-owned restaurant, a local grocery store, a contractor, a barber shop, or an online seller may not have the bargaining power of a national retailer. Safer, more compliant, lower-cost options position businesses better to compete, invest, hire, and serve their customers.

Consumers benefit when payment systems compete, especially when innovation happens under U.S. rules, rather than in offshore markets where American regulators have less visibility to protect consumers.

Because of this Committee’s leadership, Congress has already taken a major step. The GENIUS Act created a federal framework for payment stablecoins, including requirements for reserve backing, public reserve disclosures, supervision, and compliance. That framework can help give consumers, businesses, banks, and regulators greater confidence that payment stablecoins are backed, redeemable, supervised, and compliant.16

Third, digital assets can reduce barriers to owning and transferring assets.

Tokenization is the process of representing ownership, rights, or claims on a blockchain. That can include financial assets, such as funds, bonds, Treasuries, private credit, collateral, and commodities. But it can also include real estate interests, invoices, receivables, warehouse receipts, supply chain records, intellectual property royalties, energy credits, and other records of ownership or entitlement.

That matters because today, too many markets still rely on fragmented, paper records and duplicative processes. One system records ownership. Another verifies documents. Another sends payment instructions. Another clears the transaction. Another settles it. Another reconciles the records after the fact.


Tokenization can help reduce that friction by allowing ownership records, transfer instructions, payment, settlement, and verification to operate through a shared digital infrastructure. That can mean clearer records, faster settlement, stronger auditability, fewer duplicative checks, and lower administrative costs.

This matters across the economy.

For funds and securities, tokenization can make issuance, subscriptions, redemptions, transfer agency functions, and investor recordkeeping more efficient.

For Treasuries and collateral, it can help assets move more efficiently through the financial rules and regulations that support the markets Americans rely on every day.

For small businesses, tokenized invoices and receivables can help verify payment rights, improve recordkeeping, and unlock working capital faster.

For supply chains, tokenized warehouse receipts and inventory records improve transparency and accuracy about who owns what, where it is, and when it changed hands.

And for real estate, tokenization can help modernize one of the most expensive and paperheavy transactions most Americans will ever experience.

When a family buys a home, thousands of dollars can be consumed by the process of transferring ownership, verifying title, moving funds, recording documents, and closing the transaction. Closing costs often range from 2 to 5 percent of the purchase price, not including the down payment.17

On a $350,000 home, which is currently lower than the median U.S. average price, that can mean $7,000 to $17,500 before a family receives the keys.

While those costs pay for important protections, it should concern everyone on this Committee that the largest financial transaction most Americans will ever make still depends on a process that can be fragmented, paper-heavy, duplicative, and expensive.

Homeownership is already hard enough, especially for first-time buyers. Fannie Mae has found that closing costs are a meaningful obstacle for first-time and low-income homebuyers. In an analysis of approximately 1.1 million home purchase loans acquired in 2020, Fannie Mae found that more than 14 percent of low-income first-time homebuyers had closing costs equal to or exceeding their down payment.18

Modernizing record-keeping, including proof of ownership, transferring value, and settling transactions, are a few ways to make life easier for our neighbors through transparency, reducing duplicative verification, improving auditability, and expanding efficient pathways for transferring interests in assets, rights, and records.

Beyond lowering costs, tokenization can be a key to unlocking access to ownership by reducing the cost of entry for large-scale investments.

Fractional ownership, when properly regulated, can allow participation in smaller increments while preserving investor protections, disclosures, custody standards, suitability requirements, transfer restrictions, and market integrity rules.

That expands wealth-building opportunities beyond those with existing wealth. Though not yet operating at a national scale, the potential is easy to see in the efforts made so far to tokenize and offer small shares for investors to buy and hold.
Major financial institutions, asset managers, technology companies, and market participants are already building toward a more efficient model for issuing, owning, transferring, and administering assets, rights, and records. Citi Institute projected in June 2026 that the global tokenized asset market could grow from approximately $17 billion today to $5.5 trillion by 2030.19 McKinsey has estimated that tokenized market capitalization could reach approximately $2 trillion by 2030, excluding cryptocurrencies and stablecoins.20

Those projections are not a guarantee. They show where markets are moving. A critical question that only Congress can answer is whether that activity will happen under U.S. rules, with U.S. regulators serving U.S. consumers and businesses, or whether it will move offshore.

Regulators are now implementing the GENIUS Act through rules governing issuer supervision, reserve standards, custodial and safekeeping requirements, Bank Secrecy Act obligations, sanctions compliance, and customer identification requirements.21

The GENIUS Act was a major bipartisan accomplishment. It showed that Congress can create clear rules for digital assets that support innovation, protect consumers, and give regulators the tools they need.

And we recognize the heavy lifting this committee has continued to do to ensure consumers, innovators, and regulators can build onshore with confidence.

On May 14, 2026, this Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act by a bipartisan vote of 15 to 9.22 That vote matters because market structure is the foundation for responsible digital asset innovation, and because digital asset regulation should not be partisan.

A clear market structure framework will define who the primary regulator is for what kind of token, what disclosures are required, how intermediaries must operate, how customer assets are protected, and how illicit activity is policed.

This matters for affordability because uncertainty carries a real cost. Muddy, antiquated regulations push responsible companies to divert resources from product development to legal and compliance, and cause banks and regulated financial institutions to hesitate to engage in emerging and more efficient products. Consumers are left with fewer regulated options, and regulators are forced to oversee a market without clear statutory tools.

The better approach is clear, durable law: a framework that defines regulatory authority, and gives innovators commonsense rules and obligations to ensure consumers can confidently participate in the market and have long-term protections.

Digital assets are not a silver bullet for affordability, but they are a practical tool for reducing financial friction.

Digital assets can help lower those costs, but only if Congress provides the clarity needed to build responsibly.

The Digital Chamber and our members are committed to supporting fair, responsible regulation. We support strong consumer protections with clear rules for market participants and innovators. Such a framework encourages and supports innovation in the United States.

If you have any questions, please reach out to press@digitalchamber.org.

Prediction Market Monday: Offshore vs. Onshore

by Simi Awe

The prediction market landscape is more complex than it appears. Depending on where a platform operates, the rules, protections, and accessibility for users can vary drastically.

There are many differences between offshore and onshore prediction markets, but most of those differences can be tied to the fact that onshore prediction markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and offshore are not.

Offshore vs Onshore prediction markets comparison across 9 regulatory and operational topics.
Market structure

Offshore vs. Onshore

A side-by-side look at oversight, access, protections, privacy, and participant reach.

Comparing Topic
Market type Offshore
Market type Onshore
U.S. Regulatory Oversight
None
CFTC & DOJ
Issuer Data Reporting
No
Yes
Market Variety
Broad
Limited
Consumer Protection Requirements
Platform discretion
Yes
Limitations on Event Contract Types
No
Yes
Onboarding Process
Faster
Slower, stricter eligibility
Anti-Money Laundering Procedures
Platform discretion
Yes
User Privacy
Higher
Lower
Variety of Participants
Global U.S. largely excluded
U.S. based Primarily domestic
Detailed explainer covering onshore and offshore prediction market structures, regulation, and tradeoffs.
U.S.-regulated
Onshore Markets
CFTC-registered & DCM-licensed

U.S.-based prediction markets must register with the CFTC and obtain a Designated Contract Market (DCM) license to offer event contracts — a high bar with currently only 25 registered DCMs.

Once approved, platforms must comply with 23 Core Principles — including identity verification, fraud monitoring, and market integrity safeguards. The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight conducts regular Rule Enforcement Reviews (RERs) of each DCM.

The Commodity Exchange Act restricts contract types: events touching war, assassination, terrorism, gaming, or matters deemed against public interest are prohibited.

Regulated platforms must impose stricter user eligibility and collect personal data — reducing anonymity in exchange for stronger protections.
Unregulated
Offshore Markets
No U.S. regulatory oversight

Offshore platforms operate outside U.S. regulatory requirements. Most do not verify identities or collect user data, offering greater privacy and a broader range of contracts to a global user base.

Many run on blockchain-enabled infrastructure — making all trade timing and sizing permanently, publicly recorded via an immutable ledger. Users, not platforms, typically create the markets themselves.

Faster onboarding and fewer compliance barriers make entry easier — but these platforms use geofencing and terms of service to block U.S. users from accessing their markets.

Greater flexibility and privacy come without the consumer protections or regulatory recourse available to onshore participants.
Accessibility & Tradeoffs

Onshore markets are available to U.S. users and deliver stronger consumer protections and regulatory oversight — at the cost of higher compliance burdens and operational constraints. Offshore markets ban U.S. users entirely, offering greater flexibility and accessibility but carrying elevated risk due to the absence of regulatory protections.

In the context of U.S. users and federal oversight, only onshore markets are currently available — and those markets operate under a strict regulatory regime.

If you have any questions, please reach out to policy@digitalchamber.org. 

Prediction Market Monday: Common Misconceptions

by Simi Awe

Prediction markets are more than they appear, and the misconceptions surrounding them are holding back a powerful financial innovation. From unfair comparisons to casino gambling to assumptions of zero oversight, the narrative around prediction markets is often wrong.

The reality is that these markets are peer-to-peer exchanges regulated by the CFTC, and they offer real value to businesses, policymakers, and individuals alike.

Full explainer on prediction markets covering three myths and three supporting facts, with footnote citation.
Prediction Markets — Common Misconceptions
Myth 1
Prediction Markets Are Gambling

Prediction Markets are simply marketplaces that connect buyers with sellers on contracts based on the outcomes of future events. These events span a wide range of topics, including election results, economic indicators, and sports outcomes.

While they may resemble casino-style gambling at first glance, prediction markets have key differences, which is why they so clearly should be regulated by the CFTC. Prediction markets are driven by purely supply/demand dynamics and there is no “house” to win if a consumer loses.

Just like other financial markets, profits or losses are based solely on how accurate the individual’s investment thesis is, and there is no central “book” that sets odds in ways to ensure the “book” always wins. These are marketplaces that simply bring together willing buyers with willing sellers.

Because participants trade peer-to-peer contracts on exchanges based on the underlying outcome of future events, these instruments are better classified as swaps rather than gambling.

Myth 2
Prediction Markets Are Unregulated

Prediction markets in the United States are not unregulated. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversees event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act, as it does with other derivatives, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has the power to bring criminal charges for perpetrators of insider trading or fraud on these markets.

This regulatory framework imposes requirements for platform registration including AML/KYC checks, customer protections, and safeguards against fraud and market manipulation. Platforms must comply with these standards to operate legally in the United States.

Myth 3
Prediction Markets Have No Benefits

Prediction markets serve as powerful forecasting tools. By aggregating the beliefs of many participants, they generate probability estimates for future outcomes that are often more accurate than traditional methods.

Unlike expert-driven forecasts, prediction markets do not privilege credentials or authority. Instead, they rely on incentives; participants earn rewards for accurate predictions, which encourages honest and information-driven participation.

These markets can complement traditional polling by filling gaps and providing additional data. Their applications extend beyond politics to areas such as economic forecasting, offering valuable insights to companies, policymakers, and analysts alike and the ability to financially hedge against future events by individuals and entities financially effected by the potential outcome of those events.

Setting the Record Straight
Overview

As interest in prediction markets has increased, so too have misconceptions surrounding them. Lawmakers, news outlets, financial experts, and citizens frequently discuss three common myths: that prediction markets are casino-style gambling, that they are unregulated, and that they have no benefit. Each of these claims is misleading and contributes to an overly negative and inaccurate perception of prediction markets.

First
01

Prediction markets are not simply gambling or sports betting. A prediction market is an online platform where users buy and sell contracts based on the outcomes of future events. Unlike traditional gambling, which typically involves betting against a “house,” prediction markets operate as peer-to-peer exchanges where participants trade with one another. Participants can also trade in and out of their positions in real time based on new information.

In addition, event contracts in prediction markets are swaps or other derivatives depending on their structure. Like other swaps, these contracts include cash settlements based on the occurrence of an underlying event. This classification has important legal implications, as regulators and courts increasingly analyze event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act’s framework for derivatives. Recently, in Kalshi v Flaherty, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated that event contracts satisfy the CEA’s definition of a swap.

Second
02

Prediction markets are not an unregulated “Wild West,” as some assume. Because many prediction market contracts fall within the category of derivatives, the CFTC oversees them under the Commodity Exchange Act. The CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over swaps. The CFTC imposes strict regulations under 17 CFR 40.11 over what events can’t be used as a basis for a contract.

It also requires platforms to create rules to protect participants from fraud and market manipulation. Prediction markets can face serious consequences from the CFTC if they violate any of their regulations.

Third
03

Prediction markets can serve as valuable tools for society. One of their primary strengths is their ability to aggregate information from a wide range of participants. Unlike traditional polling, which may rely on limited samples or emphasize expert opinion★, prediction markets incorporate diverse viewpoints and incentivize accuracy through financial stakes. In some cases, prediction markets have matched or exceeded the accuracy of traditional polling.

This aggregation of information extends beyond politics. Businesses can use prediction markets to forecast demand or assess regulatory risk. As understanding of these platforms grows, their potential to contribute to more informed and efficient decision-making is likely to expand.

★

Diercks, Anthony M., Jared Dean Katz, and Jonathan H. Wright (2026). “Kalshi and the Rise of Macro Markets,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2026-010. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2026.010

If you have any questions, please reach out to policy@digitalchamber.org. 

Delaware Senate Moves Forward on Blockchain Task Force

by Simi Awe

What Happened:  

On March 24, 2026, Anastasia Dellaccio, Executive Director of State and Regional Affairs at TDC State Network, testified before the Delaware State Senate in support of SCR 143 legislation sponsored by Senator Darius J. Brown and Rep. Michael Smith to create a task force evaluating blockchain and digital innovation policy in Delaware. 

Following her testimony, SCR 143 passed the committee. Delaware continues to lead on financial innovation, demonstrating its commitment to thoughtful, forward-looking policies that support the growth of blockchain and digital technology.

Why it matters: 

  • Delaware is home to over 1 million businesses, including 60% of the Fortune 500 companies, and is a cornerstone of the U.S. financial services sector.
  • The task force offers a low-risk, low-cost, transparent pathway to explore blockchain applications, engage with industry, and build expertise before adopting policies. 
  • States are increasingly shaping digital asset rules as federal policy evolves. 

Dellaccio’s Take: 

“Blockchain studies and task forces such as the one proposed here offer a low-risk, low-cost, and transparent pathway to policymaking in a highly technical and rapidly evolving area. They allow lawmakers to build internal expertise, compare approaches across jurisdictions, engage with industry, and evaluate practical use cases before committing public resources or adopting policies that may become difficult to unwind. If developed in a way that embraces innovation while establishing appropriate consumer protections, this Task Force can provide Delaware with clear, implementation-ready guidance that strengthens the state’s economic competitiveness, supports its workforce, and ensures it remains at the center of modern financial infrastructure.”  

Looking Ahead:  

SCR 143 could lead to pilot programs, regulatory frameworks, new governance structures like DUNAs, and applications in digital identity, supply chain tracking, and modernizing land and property records. 

You can watch her full testimony here or read the full written testimony below:  

Read The Testimony

If you have any questions, please reach out to policy@digitalchamber.org. 

The Digital Chamber Announces Strategic Partnership with Orbital Beam Consortium

by Simi Awe

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
JULY 28, 2025   

The Digital Chamber and Orbital Beam Consortium Announce Strategic Partnership to Advance Regulatory Goals, Fuel Real-World Digital Asset Adoption

Washington, D.C. | JULY 2025 — Today, The Digital Chamber (TDC), announces a new strategic partnership with Orbital Beam Consortium (OBC). This alliance brings together the nation’s leading blockchain policy advocate and a global data and intelligence powerhouse. The partnership will elevate industry voices and advance an innovation-friendly environment for real-world asset (RWA) adoption across government, enterprise, and capital markets.

TDC’s and OBC’s partnership includes targeted advocacy efforts and curated opportunities for strategic alignment between stakeholders in both organizations.

“This partnership reflects a new playbook for cross-sector collaboration,” said Merris Badcock, Vice President of Industry Relations at The Digital Chamber. “By joining forces with Orbital Beam, we’re creating a strategic bridge between regulatory leadership and the innovators shaping tomorrow’s markets. Our goal is to align the people building in this space with the policymakers shaping it—before the window for meaningful influence closes.”

“This is not just a handshake — it’s a meaningful alliance built on aligned values and a long-term view of the ecosystem,” said Scott Bourke, Founder of Orbital Beam Consortium. “We’re excited to work alongside The Digital Chamber to ensure the next generation of digital asset infrastructure is both regulatory-grade and globally competitive.”

Bourke will also join The Digital Chamber’s forthcoming Ambassador Program, a strategic initiative designed to elevate TDC’s visibility and influence, from Congress to regulators, by leveraging trusted voices to champion responsible innovation and modern policy approaches. In turn, Cody Carbone, CEO of The Digital Chamber, will join Orbital Beam Consortium’s Advisory Board to help guide its policy engagement and strategic vision. Merris Badcock, Vice President of Industry Relations at The Digital Chamber, will also join the Advisory Board, bringing expertise in industry engagement and coalition-building.

###

About The Digital Chamber 
The Digital Chamber is the world’s leading trade association representing blockchain and digital asset innovators. Founded in 2014, the organization has shaped national policy, defended the industry during its most challenging periods, and secured bipartisan support for blockchain innovation. Today, The Digital Chamber is building the future of the digital economy through education, advocacy, and strategic engagement in Washington and around the world. 


About Orbital Beam Consortium:

Orbital Beam is a private consortium for founders, protocols, and institutions building real-world infrastructure on-chain. We’re not an accelerator. We’re a high-trust network that connects serious operators with regulators, enterprise partners, capital allocators, and policy insiders. Members get direct access to the people and insights that drive adoption—from government grant intel to investor deal flow, compliance support, and curated IRL strategy sessions. If you’re building for the real world, you belong inside this one.

Website: www.digitalchamber.org 

The Digital Chamber Backs DOJ’s Restraint on Digital Assets Prosecutions

by Simi Awe

The Digital Chamber Backs DOJ’s Restraint on Prosecuting Digital Assets Entrepreneurs and Innovators

Washington, D.C., April 14, 2025 – The Digital Chamber wholeheartedly supports the recent decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to refrain from prosecuting entrepreneurs and innovators in the digital assets sector for inadvertent lapses in complying with complex and evolving rules.  Reigning in prosecutors from misusing strict liability standards for failure to register as a money services business marks a significant step forward in fostering a fair and just regulatory environment for the burgeoning digital assets industry. 

The DOJ’s decision aligns closely with the core principles of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. This statute is designed to combat money laundering and other illegal activities by dismantling operations that enable such crimes. Its primary purpose is to equip law enforcement with the tools to target those who intentionally exploit the financial system for illicit gain. However, it was never meant to penalize individuals or entities that are committed to compliance, even in the face of complex and sometimes unclear regulations. 

We are particularly encouraged by the clear directive articulated by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasizing that the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial focus within the digital asset space will be squarely aimed at “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.” This strategic prioritization underscores a commitment to protecting consumers and national security, aligning law enforcement resources with the most significant threats. 

The Deputy Attorney General’s further guidance that prosecutors should generally refrain from criminalizing regulatory violations, including but not limited to unlicensed money transmitting under 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(I)(A) and (B), Bank Secrecy Act violations, unregistered securities or broker-dealer offerings, and other registration infractions under the Commodity Exchange Act, absent clear evidence of the defendant’s knowing and willful violation of such requirements, is appropriate and consistent with the original legislative intent. This exercise of prosecutorial discretion acknowledges the genuine challenges faced by innovators and entrepreneurs navigating a rapidly evolving technological and regulatory landscape. It recognizes that unintentional non-compliance, born from a lack of clarity or genuine misunderstanding of complex rules, should not be equated with deliberate criminal conduct. 

The Digital Chamber also welcomes the Justice Department’s active participation in President Trump’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, established by Executive Order 14178. The designation of senior legal experts to this vital body underscores the DOJ’s commitment to engaging proactively in the development of a clear and effective regulatory framework for digital assets. This collaboration between policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders will be crucial for fostering a balanced and sustainable ecosystem. 

The Digital Chamber also applauds Acting Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Caroline Pham’s statement lauding the DOJ’s policy of ending the practice of regulation by prosecution that has targeted the digital asset industry in recent years and directing CFTC staff to comply with the President’s executive orders and Administration policy, consistent with DOJ’s digital assets enforcement priorities and charging considerations. As Acting Chairman Pham noted in her statement, “[F]or far too long, lawfare from multiple federal agencies against innovators in the digital asset space has created unfairness and uncertainty that has undermined trust in the regulatory process and impeded American competitiveness.” 

The Digital Chamber firmly believes that clarity, education, and open dialogue are essential for the responsible growth of the digital asset industry. The DOJ’s recent decision reflects these principles and provides a crucial foundation for building a regulatory environment that encourages innovation while safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. We commend the Department for its thoughtful approach and look forward to continued collaboration to ensure the United States remains a leader in the digital asset revolution. 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Kristopher Klaich 
Director of Policy, The Digital Chamber 

If you have any questions, please reach out to Policy@digitalchamber.org.

Championing Democracy with Blockchain Technology: H. Res. 1622

by Simi Awe

The Digital Chamber commends Representative Amo (D-RI-1) and Representative Kim (R-CA-40) for their bipartisan leadership in introducing H. Res. 1622, highlighting the transformative role of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) in strengthening democracy, protecting human rights, and advancing global transparency. This resolution urges the U.S. Government to support the use of DLT to promote democratic values and internet freedom, serving as a formal expression of legislative priorities without carrying the force of law.  

At a time when democratic values face unprecedented challenges worldwide, this resolution demonstrates the United States’ commitment to harnessing cutting-edge technology to reinforce institutions that uphold freedom, accountability, and resilience. 

A Vision for DLT/Blockchains and Democratic Empowerment 

DLT offers tamper-resistant, transparent, and decentralized platforms for recording and verifying data, addressing critical issues of corruption, misinformation, and inefficiencies that sap democratic apparatuses of their efficacy. From securing digitized government documents to facilitating transparent financial transfers and combating censorship, blockchains have the power to create more accountable and equitable systems of governance. 

Key applications outlined in H. Res. 1622 include: 

  • Identity Management: Establishing secure and portable digital identities, fighting fraud and identity theft, and securing borders. 
  • Citizen Representation: Enabling secure, transparent voting systems, reducing electoral fraud, and empowering citizens to participate in fair elections. 
  • Land Registration: Preventing fraud while increasing transparency and accessibility of real estate for consumers. 
  • Aid Distribution: Enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and lowering reliance on intermediaries for individuals coping with humanitarian crises. 
  • Censorship Resistance: Empowering free expression by enabling decentralized platforms that protect access to information. 

Why H. Res. 1622 Matters 

By promoting the use of DLT in critical areas such as governance and sustainability, this resolution positions the United States as a global leader in ethical innovation. Key provisions include: 

  • Government Engagement: Encouraging agencies like the Department of State and USAID to support blockchain applications in democratic governance, diplomacy, and aid delivery. 
  • Combating Censorship: Recognizing blockchains as tools for securing internet freedom and supporting freedom of speech. 
  • Responsible Leadership: Urging U.S. policymakers to create frameworks that ensure ethical and sustainable uses of blockchain technology. 

TDC Efforts 

For years, TDC has advocated for integrating blockchain into public policy frameworks. We believe this technology holds immense potential to advance human rights and support democratic values, and we welcome legislative recognition to that effect. H. Res. 1622 aligns closely with these objectives, providing a roadmap for government agencies, private sector innovators, and civil society to explore the possibilities of DLT while addressing concerns about misuse and accessibility. 

What’s Next? 

The resolution will need to be re-introduced in the 119th Congress. TDC invites all stakeholders to support this critical legislation and encourages the House to act swiftly in its passage. By championing H. Res. 1622, Congress can reaffirm its commitment to technological innovation that upholds democratic values, strengthens institutions, and promotes global human rights in the 119th Congress. 

The Digital Chamber Strengthens Advocacy Efforts with New Policy Hires 

by Simi Awe

For Immediate Release 
Date: September 4, 2024 
 

Washington, D.C. — The Digital Chamber is dedicated to advancing blockchain technology, and by adding three seasoned professionals, TDC enhances its ability to drive meaningful impact. Jean-Philippe Beaudet, Jackson Mueller, and Jonathan Rufrano bring a wealth of experience and expertise that will bolster the Chamber’s advocacy initiatives in the rapidly evolving digital asset and blockchain space. 

Jean-Philippe (JP) Beaudet joins us as a Policy Associate focused on national security. With a master’s degree from American University, JP offers fresh insights into emerging technologies and their implications for national security. His experience with National Security Leaders for America and the Washington Kurdish Institute adds a valuable perspective, bridging the gap between digital assets and global security concerns

Jackson Mueller joins us as Policy Director, bringing over 15 years of experience from his work at Securrency and the Milken Institute’s FinTech Program. His expertise in digital asset infrastructure and financial markets will be critical as TDC advocates for a balanced regulatory environment that supports innovation and growth in digital finance. 

Jonathan Rufrano, seasoned expert in policy development and regulatory affairs, joining us as Policy Director. With over a decade of experience in blockchain and international tech policy, he has made significant contributions to decentralized ID standards through ISO and NIST. Jonathan’s roles at Stanford, Spruce ID, and Chainalysis will be key instrumental in advancing our efforts in DeFi and fostering consumer innovation. 

“Our policy efforts are critical as the digital asset industry navigates increasing regulatory challenges,” said Cody Carbone, President of The Digital Chamber. “By welcoming JP, Jackson, and Jonathan to our policy team, we are enhancing our ability to represent our members, collaborate with policymakers and advocate for fair, sensible regulations that promote innovation and protect consumers. Their expertise will ensure that The Digital Chamber remains the leading voice in shaping policies that advance blockchain technology and digital assets responsibly.” 

These strategic hires reflect The Digital Chamber’s commitment to being at the forefront of policy discussions that shape the future of digital assets and blockchain technology. By expanding our team, TDC is better equipped to advocate for policies that foster innovation, security, and inclusive growth in the industry. 

About The Digital Chamber 

The Digital Chamber is a nonprofit organization committed to promoting blockchain adoption. We envision a fair and inclusive digital and financial ecosystem where everyone has the opportunity to participate. Access to digital assets is not merely a technological advancement but a fundamental human right, crucial for economic and social empowerment. Through targeted education, advocacy, and strategic collaborations with government and industry stakeholders, we drive innovation and shape policies that create a favorable environment for the blockchain technology ecosystem. 
 

For more information, please contact: 
The Digital Chamber 
press@digitalchamber.org  
www.digitalchamber.org