CFTC拟推预测市场新规，涵盖消费者保护与市场设计

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is preparing another round of prediction market rules covering consumer protections, product governance and market design, Chairman Michael Selig said Thursday, as some of the biggest names in derivatives and prediction markets debated how far the rapidly expanding contracts should be allowed to go.

“I expect the Commission will soon propose a series of amendments to Parts 38 and 40 of the CFTC’s regulations to modernize the core principles and listing rules governing DCMs that list event contracts and institute consumer protection requirements,” Selig said during the inaugural meeting of the CFTC’s newly reconstituted Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC).

Selig said the forthcoming amendments would establish “clear expectations for product governance, market design, and incentive programs.” The forthcoming rules would add to two prediction market rulemakings the CFTC already has underway, including its proposed overhaul of Rule 40.11 governing CFTC review of certain event contracts and a separate proposal addressing event-contract data reporting.

The IAC’s roughly three-and-a-half-hour meeting was divided into separate sessions on crypto, artificial intelligence and prediction markets. Participants generally backed clearer federal rules and efforts to keep emerging markets in the U.S., but the prediction market session exposed sharper divisions over self-certification, manipulation risks and whether certain contracts should ever be listed.

Want to see more from DefiRate? Add us as a preferred news source on your Google account

Selig casts state fights as test of federal authority

Selig used his opening remarks to cast the growing number of state challenges to prediction markets as a broader fight over the CFTC’s authority, rather than simply a dispute over whether sports contracts resemble state-regulated betting.

“States now seek to nullify federal law by applying their anti-gaming laws to DCMs,” Selig said, adding that the CFTC would continue to “defend our exclusive jurisdiction in court.”

He drew a parallel to earlier efforts to apply anti-gaming and bucket-shop laws to futures markets before federal derivatives regulation became firmly established. Today’s disputes, he argued, similarly threaten a nationwide market structure by subjecting federally regulated exchanges to conflicting state rules.

That position had broad support around the table. But it also sharpened the question that dominated the prediction market session: if the CFTC is going to be the primary regulator, how far should it go in deciding which contracts are too easily manipulated, too harmful or otherwise unsuitable to list?

CME’s Duffy says some contracts threaten market credibility

CME Group Chairman and CEO Terry Duffy delivered the sharpest criticism of the prediction market boom, arguing that some more recently self-certified contracts violate Core Principle 3, which requires DCMs to list only contracts that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.

“We’re not a bunch of carnival barkers at a circus,” Duffy said. “We are running the most envied markets in the world in the United States of America.”

Duffy cited markets tied to political events, individual behavior and sports as examples of contracts that can create obvious manipulation risks. He also argued that the CFTC risks applying different standards to newer prediction market exchanges and incumbent derivatives venues, warning that bad products could damage confidence in the broader market.

Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara pushed back, arguing that manipulation risk is hardly unique to prediction markets and that regulation exists in part to detect and address those problems. She asked Duffy whether CME had ever experienced manipulation issues of its own.

Duffy responded by touting the size of CME’s compliance operation, saying his regulatory department was larger than Kalshi’s entire company. Lopes Lara shot back, “Maybe you should learn a bit about efficiency then.”

“Maybe you should learn about credible markets,” Duffy replied.

It’s getting TENSE in there https://t.co/P1vUXXP8Nf pic.twitter.com/PicR9g1RsT

— Fairplaygov (@fairplaygov) August 20, 2026

Industry supporters also call for limits

Duffy was hardly alone in arguing that some event contracts should face a higher bar. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, while strongly supporting prediction markets and the CFTC’s jurisdiction over them, proposed a three-part test for novel contracts centered on public harm, whether a market has a direct causal link to that harm and how susceptible it is to manipulation.

Armstrong said the default should generally be to allow new markets unless regulators can identify a specific harm, cautioning that an overly broad standard could sweep in products with real public value. Even contracts controlled by a single person, he argued, may be worth allowing if their informational value outweighs the manipulation risk.

Don Wilson, founder of Chicago trading firm DRW, agreed with that general approach but said some contracts already listed clearly fall below the line. He pointed to Kalshi’s market on whether former congressman George Santos would attend the State of the Union, which became the subject of a CFTC enforcement case after the agency found Santos manipulated the market while trading on the outcome himself.

“There are clearly some markets that just don’t meet that bar that have been listed,” Wilson said, adding that the Santos contract “never should have been listed in the first place.”

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev struck a similar note on mention markets, in which traders take positions on whether a person will say a particular word or phrase during a speech or other public appearance. While saying they can be “very fun,” he warned that some are “very prone to manipulation,” particularly when a speaker or people around them can directly influence whether a word or phrase is said.

Vlad is not crazy about mention markets pic.twitter.com/B7iILg2qQd

— Fairplaygov (@fairplaygov) August 20, 2026

Consumer protections emerge as common ground

Despite disagreements over which contracts should be allowed, participants found more common ground on the need for consistent retail protections. Lopes Lara argued that a federal framework could provide stronger and more uniform safeguards than a patchwork of state rules, including standards around advertising and customers who have shown signs of problematic trading.

Tenev focused on differences between customers who trade directly with a designated contract market (DCM) and those who access one through a futures commission merchant (FCM), an intermediary that carries customer accounts and routes their orders to the exchange. He said the two routes can come with different know-your-customer requirements, including whether a customer’s employer information is collected, creating what he described as an unnecessary regulatory disparity.

Jason Robins, CEO of DraftKings, which offers event contract trading through DraftKings Predictions, agreed. “The rules for customers going directly to DCM versus those going through an FCM should be identical,” he said.

Matt King, CEO of Fanatics Betting & Gaming, which offers prediction markets through Fanatics Markets, urged the CFTC to establish minimum responsible trading standards across the industry, warning that while most customers will use prediction markets without problems, a smaller group could suffer significant financial harm. FanDuel President Christian Genetski, whose company offers event contracts through FanDuel Predicts, similarly said building consumer trust should be a priority, with clear rules covering market integrity, advertising and customer protection.

Coplan calls prediction markets experimental, points to surveillance push