By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel is divided on the impact of the CFTC's proposed framework for prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket. While some see it as providing regulatory clarity and potentially unlocking larger, more liquid markets, others warn of persistent regulatory uncertainty, arbitrary contract rejections, and political risks that could chill platform growth.
Risk: Regulatory uncertainty and arbitrary contract rejections could chill platform growth and push activity offshore or into crypto-native venues.
Opportunity: A clear federal framework under the Commodity Exchange Act could provide legal certainty required for liquidity providers and market makers to enter the space, potentially driving volume beyond retail speculation into corporate hedging and risk management.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.
U.S. regulators are reportedly set to propose a comprehensive set of regulations for prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The move is aimed at preventing possible manipulation while still allowing most sports-related bets.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is preparing to propose new regulations that are designed to empower the commission to reject prediction wagers that are not in the public interest or are highly susceptible to manipulation, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
The rules could affect certain sports-related trading markets, including wagers on player injuries and first-pitch outcomes. Markets tied to war, terrorism, or assassinations would likely be barred, as regulators do not consider them to be in the public interest.
Don't Miss:
The proposed rules do not outright prohibit any specific event contracts. Instead, they establish a framework for regulators to evaluate certain contracts individually, with the list of permitted activities expected to far exceed the prohibited categories.
Despite opposition from states with their own gambling laws, officials maintain that the intent is to allow the growth of prediction markets, including those focused on sports.
CFTC did not immediately respond to Benzinga’s request for comments.
Trump Backs CFTC Authority
The proposed regulations come in the wake of President Donald Trump‘s support for the CFTC’s exclusive oversight of prediction markets, arguing that the industry should operate under a single federal framework rather than a patchwork of state regulations. He also criticized several state officials, including Letitia James, Tim Walz, J.B. Pritzker, and Chris Christie, for opposing prediction markets.
Trending: Avoid the #1 Investing Mistake: How Your ‘Safe' Holdings Could Be Costing You Big Time
In March, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning state officials from using non-public information to profit on prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi.
Oversight Debate Intensifies
Recent events have raised concerns about the potential for manipulation in prediction markets. On Tuesday, prediction market operator Kalshi announced that it would start collecting work information from users attempting to place bets that could benefit from insider information. This move was in response to concerns about “markets with heightened insider or manipulation risk.”
Last month, a group called FairPredicts launched an ad campaign targeting Kalshi, calling for greater accountability in how the federally-regulated platform operates. The campaign was launched across Washington, D.C., in what appeared to be a direct response to Kalshi’s advertising push in the city the previous month.
Image via Shutterstock
**Read Next: **
Building Wealth Across More Than Just the Market
Building a resilient portfolio means thinking beyond a single asset or market trend. Economic cycles shift, sectors rise and fall, and no one investment performs well in every environment. That's why many investors look to diversify with platforms that provide access to real estate, fixed-income opportunities, precious metals, and even self-directed retirement accounts. By spreading exposure across multiple asset classes, it becomes easier to manage risk, capture steady returns, and create long-term wealth that isn't tied to the fortunes of just one company or industry.
Arrived
Backed by Jeff Bezos, Arrived Homes makes real estate investing accessible with a low barrier to entry. Investors can buy fractional shares of single-family rentals and vacation homes starting with as little as $100. This allows everyday investors to diversify into real estate, collect rental income, and build long-term wealth without needing to manage properties directly.
Immersed
Immersed is building technology for the future of work through spatial computing. Known for its AR/VR productivity platform that enables users to work across multiple virtual screens, the company has grown to more than 1.5 million users worldwide. Immersed is also developing Visor, a lightweight headset designed specifically for professional productivity, positioning the company at the intersection of remote work, extended reality (XR), and next-generation computing.
Vinovest
Fine wine and rare whiskey have historically moved independently of the stock market, making them a compelling alternative asset. Vinovest manages authenticated, insured portfolios of investment-grade wine and whiskey starting at $5,000 — sourcing, storage, and insurance all handled for you.
EnergyX
EnergyX is a clean energy technology company focused on direct lithium extraction and refinery technologies for the lithium-ion battery supply chain. Its proprietary DLE systems are designed to recover lithium from brine resources more efficiently and with less environmental impact, supporting efforts to expand lithium supply for electric vehicles, grid-scale storage, and other battery applications.
FarmTogether
Farmland has historically held its value through market volatility and delivered returns uncorrelated to stocks and bonds. For accredited investors, FarmTogether offers direct access to high-quality U.S. farmland starting at $15,000 — fully managed, with no landlord headaches.
EquityMultiple
For accredited investors looking beyond stocks and bonds, EquityMultiple provides access to vetted commercial real estate deals starting at $5,000, with only ~5% of opportunities passing their due diligence process.
Fundrise
Private real estate and private credit can add income and stability to a stock-heavy portfolio. Fundrise offers access to diversified private real estate and credit strategies through an easy-to-use platform, with professionally managed portfolios designed to generate passive income and long-term growth.
American Hartford Gold
American Hartford Gold is a precious metals dealer that helps clients buy physical gold and silver coins and bars, either for direct delivery or within self-directed precious metals IRAs. The company's services include gold and silver IRAs, IRA rollovers, and home delivery of bullion, giving investors a way to use tangible metals to diversify portfolios and seek protection against inflation and market volatility.
© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Discretionary CFTC veto authority introduces more downside risk to contract variety and growth than the reported intent to expand the industry acknowledges."
The CFTC framework gives regulators case-by-case veto power over contracts deemed manipulative or against public interest, which could quietly shrink the addressable market for Kalshi and Polymarket beyond the obvious war/terrorism exclusions. Sports injury and micro-event bets already flagged as high-risk may face de facto limits, while Kalshi's new work-info collection signals persistent insider problems. Trump's push for sole federal oversight collides with active state resistance and recent ad campaigns from groups like FairPredicts. Absent from the piece is any timeline or enforcement detail that would determine whether this expands or constrains volume.
Clear federal rules could preempt state-by-state bans and draw institutional flows that more than offset narrower contract menus.
"Clear federal rules that balance guardrails with tradable event contracts could unlock sustainable growth in US prediction markets."
Regulatory clarity could unlock a larger, more liquid US prediction-markets space by moving from patchwork state rules to a federal framework, reducing manipulation risk while expanding permitted bets beyond a narrow sport-focus. If rules emphasize public-interest screens and robust guardrails, Kalshi and Polymarket may draw more mainstream capital and improve price discovery. But the risk is regulatory overreach: vague 'public interest' criteria or uneven enforcement could chill listing, raise compliance costs, and push activity offshore or into crypto-native venues. The article glosses over timing, costs, and cross-state frictions that still constrain real-world adoption.
The strongest counter is that regulators might apply 'public interest' so broadly or unpredictably that most markets become economically unviable, driving users to unregulated or offshore venues and negating any potential benefits.
"Federal oversight provides the legal moat and regulatory clarity necessary for prediction markets to transition from niche retail platforms to institutional-grade hedging venues."
The CFTC’s move to codify oversight for platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket is a net positive for the sector’s institutional viability. By replacing a chaotic patchwork of state-level 'gambling' bans with a clear federal framework under the Commodity Exchange Act, these platforms move from the regulatory fringe toward legitimacy. While the article highlights 'prohibited' categories like war or assassination markets, the real story is the formalization of event contracts as a distinct asset class. This provides the legal certainty required for liquidity providers and market makers to enter the space, potentially driving volume beyond retail speculation into corporate hedging and risk management.
The regulatory 'public interest' test is dangerously subjective; the CFTC could use this discretionary power to effectively kill any market that gains enough political sensitivity to become an embarrassment to incumbents.
"Case-by-case regulatory review masquerading as clarity is riskier for prediction market platforms than the current ambiguous status quo, because it introduces arbitrary rejection risk without speed or predictability."
The article frames this as regulatory clarity—bullish for Kalshi and Polymarket. But the CFTC's proposed framework is deliberately vague: 'case-by-case evaluation' of contracts means regulatory uncertainty persists, not clarity. The real risk is that this becomes a gatekeeping mechanism where the CFTC rejects contracts retroactively or arbitrarily, chilling platform growth. Trump's support is noted but politically fragile; a future administration reverses it. The article also buries that state-level opposition remains active (California's Newsom order cited but not analyzed for staying power). Kalshi's new employment-screening requirement is presented as compliance theater, not a genuine manipulation safeguard.
If the CFTC establishes clear approval criteria and fast-tracks most sports markets while only blocking assassination/terrorism contracts, this is genuinely pro-growth and removes the current patchwork uncertainty that's actually suppressing investment.
"Without approval timelines, the framework deters market makers despite federal legitimacy."
Gemini's assumption that CFTC codification alone unlocks market-maker entry ignores the missing enforcement timelines Grok flagged. Liquidity providers won't commit capital to hedging contracts without predictable approval cadences, leaving corporate use cases stalled even if sports markets clear. This delay risk exceeds current state frictions and could push volume offshore faster than any federal preemption benefits materialize.
"Federal clarity can attract institutional flows even before full cadence is set; the real tests are fast-tracking mainstream contracts and reducing state bans, not the timing of every approval."
Responding to Grok: I think you’re underestimating how a federal overlay changes risk calculus even if exact cadence isn’t published. A clear CEA-based framework reduces legal/regulatory tail risk, which institutions treat as a tradable risk factor; many would tolerate slower approvals if the rule-set is stable and pre-Approved standard contracts exist. The real cliff isn’t cadence so much as how quickly fast-track for mainstream assets is allowed, and whether uncapped state bans persist.
"The 'public interest' veto power creates a political risk that precludes institutional-grade liquidity, rendering the federal framework a net negative for serious market makers."
ChatGPT, you are conflating legal certainty with market viability. Even with a federal framework, the 'public interest' test is a poison pill. If the CFTC retains veto power over politically sensitive contracts, these platforms will never achieve the deep liquidity required for corporate hedging. Institutional market makers won't deploy capital if a contract can be killed for 'public interest' reasons, regardless of whether the underlying data is sound. This isn't regulatory clarity; it's a permanent political leash.
"Regulatory predictability matters more than veto power breadth; the article omits approval timelines and template-approval mechanics that actually determine institutional entry."
Gemini conflates two separate risks. The 'public interest' veto is real, but ChatGPT's point stands: institutions can price political risk if rules are *predictable*. The actual cliff is whether CFTC establishes fast-track approval for pre-vetted contract templates (sports, earnings, economic data) versus case-by-case review for everything. Nobody's quantified how many contracts get rejected or delayed. That's the missing data that determines whether this framework accelerates or stalls adoption.
The panel is divided on the impact of the CFTC's proposed framework for prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket. While some see it as providing regulatory clarity and potentially unlocking larger, more liquid markets, others warn of persistent regulatory uncertainty, arbitrary contract rejections, and political risks that could chill platform growth.
A clear federal framework under the Commodity Exchange Act could provide legal certainty required for liquidity providers and market makers to enter the space, potentially driving volume beyond retail speculation into corporate hedging and risk management.
Regulatory uncertainty and arbitrary contract rejections could chill platform growth and push activity offshore or into crypto-native venues.