Prediction Market Monday: More Than One Simple Market

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. 

Stablecoin Rules Must Match How Stablecoins Actually Work 

The Digital Chamber submitted a comment letter to FinCEN and OFAC regarding their proposed rule on AML/CFT and sanctions compliance program requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers. 

Bringing permitted payment stablecoin issuers, or PPSIs, into a clear BSA/AML framework helps consumers feel confident, helps firms do their part to protect the U.S. financial system and support law enforcement. 

At the same time, TDC urged FinCEN and OFAC to clarify the final rule so it reflects how payment stablecoins actually operate. The key point is simple: issuing a payment stablecoin is not the same as intermediating every transaction in which that stablecoin is later used. 

Why It Matters 

Payment stablecoins can strengthen U.S. payments, expand access to dollar-denominated digital value, and support responsible innovation. The current proposed rules could create obligations that no issuer can realistically meet. 

TDC’s letter focuses on several core points: 

  • PPSIs should be responsible for their own direct activities, such as issuance, redemption, custody, hosted wallet services, or other customer-facing services. 
  • PPSIs should not be required to monitor, report on, or serve as the compliance intermediary for all secondary-market activity merely because they issued the stablecoin. 
  • Recordkeeping, Travel Rule, SAR, and sanctions obligations should apply to the entity with the customer relationship, transaction role, custody, control, or legal ability to act. 
  • Blockchain analytics, digital identity, ecosystem monitoring, and AI-enabled tools can improve compliance, but they should not create broad secondary-market surveillance duties for PPSIs. 
  • FinCEN and OFAC should provide clearer guidance on when PPSIs must block, freeze, reject, seize, burn, or otherwise prevent transfers. 
  • Regulators should account for downstream risks to innocent users when stablecoins are frozen, seized, or burned inside decentralized protocols, liquidity pools, automated market makers, or other shared on-chain systems. 

TDC’s Take 

TDC supports strong AML/CFT and sanctions compliance for stablecoin issuers. But compliance obligations must be tied to the role an issuer actually plays. 

When a PPSI directly issues or redeems stablecoins for a customer, it can collect information, screen wallets, use blockchain analytics, conduct due diligence, and maintain records. But once a stablecoin moves through exchanges, custodians, merchants, self-custodied wallets, decentralized protocols, or smart contracts, the issuer often does not know the sender or recipient, does not hold the customer’s assets, and does not control the transaction. 

That distinction matters when regulators require an issuer to freeze, seize, burn, or restrict stablecoins. In a custodial setting, that action may affect a specific account or wallet. In a decentralized liquidity pool or automated market maker, the same action could disrupt pricing, liquidity, collateral, or protocol operations for users with no connection to the enforcement target. 

TDC also urged FinCEN and OFAC to provide safe harbors or mitigating-factor treatment for PPSIs that act in good faith to comply with lawful orders while taking reasonable steps to limit harm to innocent users, liquidity providers, protocol participants, and other third parties. 

Taken together, these stablecoin compliance recommendations will create rules that are both strong and workable. 

What’s Next 

TDC will continue working with regulators and industry to ensure the final rule aligns realistic compliance obligations with customer relationships and asset control. Done right, the rule can support effective enforcement while giving responsible PPSIs the clarity they need to build in the United States. 

Prediction Market Monday: The History of Prediction Markets

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

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.

Latin America’s Surge in the Global Race to Adopt Stablecoins

The GENIUS Act established the first federal framework for stablecoin issuance in the U.S. in July 2025. In the year since, stablecoin transfer volume has reached roughly $4.5T in Q1 2026. Latin American countries are seeing that success and are working to establish regulations that will likely fuel more crypto adoption in traditional finance in the region. Notably: 

  • Brazil was among the first Latin American countries to adopt such regulations through its “Virtual Assets Law.”  
  • Bolivia reversed its decade-long crypto ban in June 2024. 
  • Argentina introduced mandatory exchange registration in 2025, and many more frameworks are being developed in these markets.  

As adoption and regulation of stablecoins have pushed Latin America’s crypto market into more commercial use cases, 71% of Latin American institutions have already begun using stablecoins for cross-border payments, the highest regional adoption rate globally. Additionally, on-chain crypto volume in the region rose 60% year-over-year in 2025, driven largely by stablecoins.  

While the drivers of adoption differ, the common effect is that in 2025, there was $324 billion in stablecoin transaction volume across LATAM, representing an 89% year-over-year surge. In Brazil, currently over 90% of all crypto flows are stablecoin-related, and over 60% in Argentina. Hotels, restaurants, and tourism businesses are also beginning to accept stablecoin payments directly from international visitors, saving both businesses and tourists millions previously lost to exchange rates and credit card fees

Business-to-business (B2B) stablecoin volumes grew 30x globally in the past two years, and Latin American businesses, banks, and fintechs have been among the first to widely adopt stablecoins.  

  • Mizuho research reports that remittance fees via stablecoins in the US-Mexico corridor are now under 1%, a major improvement for consumers compared to the 5% to 7% average fees charged by traditional money transfer services.  
  • Across the $142 billion that U.S. individuals sent to Latin America in 2025, if conducted through low-cost stablecoin infrastructure, this could result in $6.1-8.9 billion in consumer savings. 

As regulations become clearer and adoption continues to grow, stablecoins are likely to play an increasingly important role in payments, savings, and cross-border transfers throughout Latin America.  

Prediction Market Monday: Offshore vs. Onshore

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.

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

Prediction Market Monday: Common Misconceptions

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. 

TDC Forums: The Place to Meet and Learn 

In a world filled with noise, decision makers’ greatest resource is time. TDC Forums are time well spent for these key leaders, and our next engagements in New York City and Chicago are filling up fast. 
 
Though built for a specific locality, the events are globally focused. With limited seating, the conversations remain small but inclusive in these half-day convenings. TDC Forums are in the works for other key international cities and build on The Digital Chamber’s reputation for sophisticated policy engagement and industry-shaping collaboration between the digital assets industry, global financial leaders, and policymakers. 
 
Rather than simply including another panel, the events are built for engagement. Whether in a group setting or one-on-one, the opportunities at TDC Forums are designed to ensure meaningful connections can grow high-impact ideas. 
 
TDC Members are invited to join the events at no cost. Non-members can join for a nominal fee. Each Forum is also open to the public and meant to diversify voices engaging in key policy issue discussions. TDC Forums are another way TDC is helping the broader industry shape the future of the digital economy across the globe. 

To learn more about the latest cities playing host to a TDC Forum and sponsorship opportunities, click here.

Insider Trading and Prediction Markets; Blockchain Transparency Drives Enforcement  

Recently, insider trading allegations related to prediction markets have been dominating headlines. One of the recent headline grabbers includes allegations a U.S. military official committed fraud and misuse of classified information. The soldier allegedly used classified intelligence related to U.S. military action in Venezuela to place a series of trades on Polymarket’s offshore platform, generating over $400,000 in personal profit. He has been charged with multiple criminal offenses, and the CFTC has also filed a lawsuit against him for civil damages. 

According to the criminal indictment, to bypass the offshore platform’s restrictions against use by U.S. individuals, it is alleged the individual accessed the platform through foreign accounts and attempted to conceal his activity by moving funds through offshore accounts. However, the activity was quickly discovered despite alleged attempts to conceal because the trades at issue were executed through public and immutable blockchain technologies. The suspicious timing and size of the trades were rapidly spotted by the public and quickly uncovered in media reports, leading to a federal investigation and the resulting criminal and civil charges. Since everyone could see the suspicious trading activity, accountability was as transparent as the blockchain ledger. 

As the call for prediction markets regulation bubbles at the state and federal level, this example illuminates a number of key policy discussion points: 

• Transparency: Blockchain-based technologies and platform monitoring appear to have contributed to identifying unusual trading patterns, which were later investigated by authorities.  

• Existing rules: This case represents one of the first major criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions for insider trading involving prediction markets. The case suggests that existing fraud, commodities, and misuse-of-information statutes can be applied to conduct on prediction markets.   

• Jurisdictional complexity: U.S. law prohibits certain event contracts, such as those involving war, which is why the individual allegedly had to use workarounds to trade on offshore markets. This highlights that U.S. regulations prohibiting event contracts on things like war and terrorism are still in full force, but the borderless nature of prediction markets and digital assets complicate who and how bad actors are brought to justice.  

• Regulatory scrutiny of prediction markets: The case and similar recent civil enforcement actions are heating up policy discussions around how prediction markets and insider trading with sensitive information on those markets should be regulated. Even though the trades happened on an offshore platform, U.S. authorities can still enforce the law. If someone in the U.S. tries to bypass restrictions to access those markets, they can be held accountable if they break U.S. law.  

Though existing laws already prohibit the insider trading alleged in this matter, clearly tying those existing rules to emerging technology like prediction markets in cases like this is necessary to ensure law enforcement can fairly police online trading activity. As with so many emerging technology products, there is a clear need for consistent regulatory frameworks that address misuse without stifling innovation. 


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

TDC’s State Network: Lawmakers, Industry Leaders Convene for New York State Blockchain Day

Washington, DC (May 27, 2026) — Industry leaders, technology advocates, and policymakers will gather today at the Legislative Office Building for New York State Blockchain Day. The education event will focus on the growing role of blockchain technology in government modernization, economic development, consumer protection, and energy innovation.

Hosted by the BSV Association, The Digital Chamber’s State Network, and the NYS Blockchain Council, the event will demonstrate to lawmakers about blockchain technology and emerging digital asset applications from industry experts that could strengthen New York’s economy and modernize public services.

Anastasia Dellaccio, Executive Director for The Digital Chamber State Network, said, “Lawmakers will see firsthand how blockchain technology can reduce administrative costs, eliminate duplicative processes, and bring real transparency to how government serves its constituents. New York’s reputation as a global finance leader will be bolstered by the innovations on display today. The Digital Chamber’s State Network is proud to stand with our partners to ensure policymakers have the tools and knowledge to build a policy environment where that innovation can take root.”

New York State Blockchain Day underscored the importance of connecting policymakers, industry experts, and community stakeholders as the state evaluates how blockchain technology can responsibly support economic growth, government efficiency, and consumer trust.

Today’s interactive demonstrations and discussions with blockchain industry leaders show how blockchain technology can:

  • Enhance transparency and accountability in government
  • Improve cybersecurity and reduce fraud
  • Modernize public infrastructure and digital services
  • Drive economic growth and job creation
  • Strengthen energy market resilience and sustainability initiatives

Organizers are also discussing the benefits of pending legislative proposals in the New York State Legislature, including legislation to modernize public sector recordkeeping and health information systems through blockchain-enabled infrastructure. Additionally, advocates will address proposals that could slow innovation, investment, and technological development in the state, including legislation impacting digital asset mining operations, data center regulation, and emerging blockchain-based financial platforms.

Through a supportive innovation ecosystem that enables blockchain businesses and digital infrastructure companies, companies can grow jobs and scale in New York, while maintaining strong consumer protections and transparency standards.

About New York State Blockchain Day

New York State Blockchain Day is an educational advocacy initiative organized by the BSV Association, the Digital Chamber State Network, and the NYS Blockchain Council to raise awareness among policymakers about blockchain technology and its applications across government, finance, healthcare, energy, and public infrastructure.

ABOUT THE DIGITAL CHAMBER’S STATE NETWORK  

The Digital Chamber’s State Network, a project of The Digital Chamber, is a non-partisan program that establishes a collaborative ecosystem connecting policymakers, regulators, industry, and innovators to advance blockchain adoption and digital asset integration across the United States.  
  
ABOUT THE DIGITAL CHAMBER  

The Digital Chamber is a non-profit organization committed to promoting global 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.   

The Digital Chamber’s umbrella includes: CryptoUK, Digital Power Network (DPN), TDC’s Digital State Network, and Treasury Council.  

###  

For media inquiries, contact press@digitalchamber.org   

 Follow The Digital Chamber I LinkedIn I Twitter I Instagram