SEC delay on prediction markets ETFs echoes a long-fought bitcoin fund battle
By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists agree that the SEC's delay on prediction markets ETFs is due to structural concerns, primarily 'Oracle Risk' and regulatory uncertainty, with a potential CFTC-SEC turf war further complicating the approval process. They disagree on the likelihood of approval and the impact of a potential denial on Kalshi's valuation.
Risk: Oracle Risk and potential CFTC-SEC turf war leading to prolonged delay or denial of ETF approvals
Opportunity: Opening of retail/401k flows and re-rating of issuers upon ETF approval
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 →
Prediction markets ETFs may soon be coming to retail investors and even into retirement plans, but maybe just not as fast as anticipated.
The Securities and Exchange Commission during the second Trump administration has sought to distinguish itself from Biden era regulators with what it calls a move away from the "regulatory creep" that it says has held back markets and innovation. But it caught some in the financial industry off guard on Tuesday when it delayed the launch of 24 prediction markets ETFs, saying it needed more time to study the products before they were released to investors.
Roundhill Investments, Bitwise, and GraniteShares had all filed with the SEC in February to launch funds tied to prediction markets covering elections, economic data, and other real-world events. Under SEC rules, ETFs are automatically effective 75 days after filing unless otherwise halted by the SEC. That 75-day window was due to expire last week. The SEC's intervention should not be surprising, according to ETF experts, even if the SEC under the Trump administration is focused on steps to ease market access, as well as less aggressive oversight of novel financial products, such as in the crypto space.
Prediction markets ETFs do represent a new kind of regulatory challenge. Unlike traditional ETFs, these investments are tied to event contracts and essentially place bets on real-world events. Some of the most notable, but also controversial, contracts on predictions markets like Kalshi are the ones related to politics, such as election results, a focus for the ETFs.
The prediction markets ETF delay does evoke memories of the years it took for spot bitcoin ETFs to be approved by the SEC. But ETF experts say the delay is most likely to be temporary as the agency looks for more information from the issuers about how the funds will work. "With any kind of novel exposure in the ETF, there will always be some last minute hiccups," said Todd Sohn, chief ETF strategist as Strategas Securities. "You could replace any new type of asset class and ETF. It's usually the case where things get pushed back a bit," he said.
"We recognize that innovative ETF products often require additional review, particularly around liquidity, market structure, and investor protections. Our priority is making sure investors are comfortable with how these products work and understand the role they can play within a regulated ETF structure," said GraniteShares CEO Will Rhind in a statement to CNBC.
There is reason for regulators to take it slow. A novel private credit ETF that State Street launched last year ran into multiple SEC hurdles post-launch which ETF experts say should have been part of the pre-approval review process.
But the most obvious comparison is spot bitcoin ETFs, which faced years of SEC resistance before finally gaining approval in January 2024. Regulators spent months wrestling with concerns about market manipulation and whether the underlying crypto markets were mature enough to take on a regulated investment product. Before approving spot bitcoin ETFs, the SEC repeatedly rejected multiple applications, arguing that issuers had failed to demonstrate how they would prevent fraud or crypto manipulation.
"Investor protection and focusing on market manipulation ... is very important to me and obviously to the SEC. That is in our DNA," SEC Chairman Paul Atkins recently said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
Questions about insider trading in prediction markets have intensified recently.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has primary oversight for prediction markets, but Atkins said in testimony before the U.S. Senate in February that the SEC needs to play an active role regulating this new area of financial activity. "Prediction markets are exactly one thing where there's overlapping jurisdiction potentially," Atkins said. "That is a huge issue we're focused on. ... It's mostly, at least currently, on the CFTC side. But we need to be harmonized in the way we're addressing these markets."
"Are prediction markets being manipulated? Is there any sort of inside information going on within those markets?" Sohn said. "The ETF wrapper is proven. It works, it is convenient, it's transparent. It is more about the markets that they're going to be tracking," he added.
The eventual approval of spot bitcoin ETFs required legal fights and political pressure. Grayscale successfully challenged the agency in federal court back in 2023 after judges said the SEC failed to explain why it treated spot bitcoin futures differently than bitcoin futures ETFs. Kalshi sued the federal government in a precedent-setting case in which it won the right to launch contracts on the 2024 presidential election.
According to Anthony Capozzolo, attorney at Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss who specializes in white-collar law and regulatory matters, a unique factor in this case is Trump family ties to prediction markets operators. Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser to both Kalshi and Polymarket, and he is affiliated with a firm that has an investment stake in the latter. "At the very least, they want to better understand what the impact of these ETFs may [be] on retail customers," Capozzolo wrote in an email to CNBC.
Sohn believes that despite the delay, the broader regulatory approach within the Trump administration leads him to the conclusion that the agency's pause does not reveal deeper opposition to the fundamental concept of predictions markets ETFs. "I think all systems go, until I see otherwise on the SEC website," Sohn said. But he added there are fair questions to be asked about primary prediction markets exchanges like Kalshi that are relatively young and do not have a long history of liquidity tests or market depth. "While it is growing, I don't know how deep of a market it is yet," he said.
This week, Kalshi announced it had raised another $1 billion from investors at a $22 billion valuation, doubling its valuation from just six months ago. It attributed the investor optimism specifically to the growth of its institutional trading business. The company said in a release that over the past six months, institutional trading volume increased 800%, representing annualized trading volume that had grown from $52 billion to $178 billion.
Nate Geraci, an ETF expert and president of NovaDius Wealth Management, wrote in an email that the delay reflects reasonable caution rather than hostility, and it draws a direct line to how the SEC handled spot bitcoin ETFs.
"ETFs have a long history of pushing boundaries to open up access to new investments and asset classes," Geraci wrote. "Given the novelty of prediction market ETFs, the SEC clearly wants to ensure that risks are properly disclosed to investors and that these products function as intended."
Geraci pointed to unique structural issues including what happens when there is a dispute about whether an event contract should be settled. "This delay demonstrates that even with a more lenient SEC, it is not simply greenlighting every ETF filing that comes across its desk," he wrote.
The SEC is the ultimate arbiter of how long the delay will last and what conditions will be imposed before approval. From the outside looking in, it's difficult to know what will lead to resolution and the timing over which it will take place. "Unless you are the issuer having discussions with them, it is kind of hard to know what the stickups are," Sohn said.
*Disclosure:* *CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a CNBC minority investment.*
Sign up for our weekly newsletter that goes beyond the livestream, offering a closer look at the trends and figures shaping the ETF market.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The SEC is not signaling opposition to prediction markets, but is instead creating a necessary buffer to prevent systemic settlement risks inherent in binary event contracts that lack mature, institutional-grade liquidity."
The SEC’s delay on these 24 ETFs is not a rerun of the Bitcoin saga; it is a structural necessity. Unlike Bitcoin, which has a verifiable ledger and global price discovery, prediction markets like Kalshi rely on 'event contracts' that are inherently binary and subject to oracle risk—the risk that the data source providing the outcome is faulty or manipulated. With Kalshi’s valuation doubling to $22 billion on 800% institutional growth, the SEC is rightly terrified of systemic contagion if an ETF wrapper fails to settle correctly. This isn't just about 'regulatory creep'; it's about preventing a 'flash crash' in synthetic event-based products that lack the liquidity depth of traditional underlying assets.
The delay could be interpreted as a strategic 'cooling off' period to allow for the development of standardized, SEC-approved clearinghouse protocols for event contracts, which would actually accelerate mass-market adoption rather than stifle it.
"The delay mirrors bitcoin ETF precedents and Kalshi's explosive growth, pointing to imminent approval under a pro-innovation SEC rather than outright rejection."
SEC's delay on Roundhill, Bitwise, and GraniteShares prediction markets ETFs—tied to Kalshi/Polymarket event contracts—is routine scrutiny for novel assets, akin to spot bitcoin ETFs' multi-year battle before Jan 2024 approval post-Grayscale court win. Kalshi's $1B raise at $22B valuation and 800% institutional volume surge (to $178B annualized) signal maturing liquidity, addressing depth concerns. Trump SEC (Atkins) favors innovation, but CFTC overlap and settlement disputes need hashing. Political bets amplify manipulation risks, yet ETF wrapper enhances transparency. Approval likely Q2 2025, opening retail/401k flows and re-rating issuers.
Trump Jr.'s advisory roles at Kalshi/Polymarket invite conflict-of-interest scrutiny and insider trading probes, especially for election contracts, potentially derailing approvals in a politically charged environment.
"The SEC is right to pause, but not for the reasons stated—the real issue is that prediction market liquidity depth and settlement mechanisms haven't been stress-tested at retail scale, and approval will likely come with restrictions that limit the ETFs' appeal."
The SEC delay is being framed as routine caution, but the underlying problem is structural, not procedural. Prediction markets lack the 20+ year operational history and deep liquidity that bitcoin futures had before spot ETF approval. Kalshi's $178B annualized volume sounds impressive until you realize it's still dwarfed by CME futures markets and concentrated among sophisticated traders. The real risk isn't regulatory hostility—it's that retail ETF inflows will hit a market too thin to absorb them without violent price swings on settlement disputes. The Trump administration's 'deregulation' framing may actually obscure legitimate concerns about market maturity that a Biden-era SEC would have articulated more clearly.
If Kalshi just raised $1B at $22B valuation with 800% YoY institutional volume growth, the market is clearly maturing faster than skeptics assume, and the SEC delay may simply be cover for political optics rather than substantive risk.
"The near-term delay hints at durable regulatory hurdles, but if liquidity, settlement credibility, and SEC-CFTC alignment are resolved, prediction markets ETFs could become a meaningful institutional niche."
The SEC's delay on prediction markets ETFs isn't just hesitation; it highlights a multidimensional risk thesis: liquidity depth, clear and enforceable settlement rules for event outcomes, and insider-information/manipulation safeguards, all within a framework that may require cross-agency harmonization with the CFTC. The article glosses over how disputes over event settlements would be resolved in an ETF wrapper and how scalable liquidity would be across volatile political cycles. Missing context includes exact liquidity thresholds, settlement mechanics for ambiguous events, and the legal risks tied to political-event contracts. While institutional interest (e.g., Kalshi) signals demand, the practical path to a proven, investable product is far from assured.
Strongest countercase: the core flaws—clear event-settlement rules, robust liquidity across volatile events, and protection against political manipulation—may prove irreconcilable at scale. If those can't be solved, the ETFs may never reach broad adoption.
"The $22 billion valuation for Kalshi is speculative and ignores the catastrophic legal risk inherent in ETF-wrapped event contract settlement failures."
Grok's $22 billion valuation for Kalshi is a massive red flag, not a signal of maturity. That valuation implies a price-to-volume multiple that is completely detached from reality for a firm facing existential regulatory binary risk. If the SEC denies these ETFs, that $22 billion valuation collapses overnight. We are ignoring the 'Oracle Risk' mentioned by Gemini; if the underlying data feed for a contract is contested, the ETF wrapper breaks, triggering a massive legal liability for the issuer.
"CFTC-SEC jurisdictional overlap poses a structural barrier to ETF approval beyond oracle or liquidity risks."
Gemini overstates the valuation red flag—Grok and Claude note Kalshi's $1B raise at $22B cap with 800% institutional volume growth, signaling real demand from VCs like Paradigm, not vaporware. The unaddressed killer is CFTC-SEC turf war: prediction markets are CFTC turf, so ETFs risk dual oversight paralysis, far worse than bitcoin's saga, potentially killing approvals pre-Q2 2025.
"Kalshi's $1B raise at $22B valuation is evidence VCs already discounted regulatory risk, not evidence the risk is mispriced."
Grok flags CFTC-SEC turf war as the killer, but that's actually less binary than oracle risk. Dual oversight creates delay, not denial—both agencies benefit from regulatory clarity. The real issue: Gemini's valuation collapse scenario assumes ETF rejection is 50%+ probable. But Kalshi's $1B raise suggests VCs priced in regulatory risk and still committed. If approval odds were <30%, that raise doesn't happen. The valuation isn't detached; it's pricing a binary correctly.
"Valuation isn’t doomed by a single ETF delay; the real determinant is a durable settlement framework and cross-agency clarity."
Gemini, the assertion that ETF denial would instantly crater Kalshi's $22B valuation oversimplifies optionality and platform-building value. Private markets rarely discount future regulatory outcomes linearly, and the real asset is a credible, scalable event-settlement framework, not today’s wrapper. The bigger risk is prolonged SEC/CFTC stalemate on cross-entity rules; if a workable path emerges, valuation could hold or re-rate modestly. If not, the downside is delayed monetization, not an immediate wipeout.
The panelists agree that the SEC's delay on prediction markets ETFs is due to structural concerns, primarily 'Oracle Risk' and regulatory uncertainty, with a potential CFTC-SEC turf war further complicating the approval process. They disagree on the likelihood of approval and the impact of a potential denial on Kalshi's valuation.
Opening of retail/401k flows and re-rating of issuers upon ETF approval
Oracle Risk and potential CFTC-SEC turf war leading to prolonged delay or denial of ETF approvals