Prediction market exchanges and established derivatives market operators used the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s recently closed public comment period to push for clearer rules around event contracts, but they did not all ask for the same kind of clarity.
The comments were submitted in response to the CFTC’s proposal to rewrite Regulation 40.11, the rule governing event contracts that may be deemed contrary to the public interest because they involve gaming, war, terrorism, assassination, unlawful conduct or other similar concerns. The proposal would move toward a contract-by-contract framework that weighs how a market settles, what kind of public value it may provide, and whether it raises manipulation, insider-information or settlement-integrity concerns.
Kalshi and Polymarket US, the two most prominent prediction market names in the docket, broadly supported that framework while urging the CFTC to preserve room for federally regulated event markets to keep developing. Their comments argued that prediction markets can serve price-discovery, information-aggregation and hedging functions, and that the CFTC should avoid turning public-interest review into an open-ended judgment about whether a contract’s subject matter is socially worthwhile.
But the industry-side comments also revealed important divides. Newer designated contract markets (DCMs) sought predictable review procedures, clearer treatment of sports and combination contracts, and more certainty around self-certification. Longer-standing derivatives exchanges like CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange were more cautious, warning that the final rule must fit within the Commodity Exchange Act’s existing structure and avoid muddying the line between event contracts, gaming and the Core Principles that already govern regulated exchanges.
Kalshi defends federal framework
Kalshi’s principal comment was both an endorsement of the CFTC proposal and an argument for tighter boundaries around how the agency applies it. Kalshi said the proposal “reflects meaningful progress” and “puts to rest the uncertainty” created by prior CFTC orders that focused on whether trading an event contract was itself gaming, rather than whether the contract’s underlying event involved gaming. “Save for certain minor suggestions described below,” Kalshi wrote that it “supports adoption of the Proposal.”
The exchange, which described itself as the “leading regulated prediction market in the United States,” said it has submitted “more than 85 percent of all event contracts certified with the Commission” and processed “tens of billions of dollars in notional volume” under CFTC oversight.
Kalshi urged the Commission to preserve the proposed settlement-based test for determining whether an event contract “involves” one of the activities covered by Regulation 40.11. The exchange said the CFTC should “resist any suggestion to layer an intent- or design-based ‘proxy’ gloss” onto that rule, warning that contracts settling on commercial measurements, market prices, official statistics or macroeconomic indicators should not be swept into a prohibited category because they resemble or correlate with a sensitive subject.
Polymarket agrees on federal prediction markets framework
Polymarket US also “strongly supports the NPRM.” Like Kalshi, it framed prediction markets as information markets serving a national public-interest function.
The company said prediction markets help with “the management and assumption of price risk, price discovery, and the dissemination of pricing information,” and argued that DCMs such as Polymarket US can operate as the “first line of defense” under the CFTC’s Core Principles framework.
Polymarket also warned against turning the public-interest review into a judgment about the social value of a market’s subject matter. In applying that public-interest authority, Polymarket said, the Commission should consider the historic role of derivatives markets and “should not conduct an open-ended assessment of whether trading on the underlying subject matter is socially desirable.”
Kalshi comments point to wider event contract categories
Kalshi’s presence in the docket extended beyond its principal comment. The exchange submitted five comments in all, including separate product-specific filings that defended mention markets, player-performance contracts, sports event contracts with commercial hedging value and parlay-style combination contracts.
Those filings help show why the CFTC rulemaking is not only about whether sports contracts can continue trading. One Kalshi-linked comment argued that mention markets, which resolve based on whether an identified speaker says certain words or phrases during a defined public event, are “legitimate, economically meaningful, and regulatorily orthodox.” Another urged the CFTC to confirm that contracts based on “objectively measurable, league-published athlete-performance statistics” are not contrary to the public interest.
Kalshi’s sports-hedging supplement went broader, arguing that sports outcomes create “real, measurable, and frequently catastrophic financial exposures” for sportsbooks, merchandisers, broadcasters, advertisers, sponsors, hospitality operators and local businesses.
Its combination contract comment asked the CFTC to treat multi-leg contracts as bundles of separate event outcomes, rather than as a separate activity that becomes suspect simply because the outcomes are packaged together. The filing said “Combination is a payoff structure, not an activity,” but also cautioned that “bundling does not launder,” meaning a contract leg that would raise public-interest concerns on its own should not become acceptable just because it is paired with other legs.
Other operators seek clearer sports contract review
Other operator-side comments largely supported the CFTC’s decision to avoid a categorical ban on sports event contracts, while asking the agency to draw clearer lines around which contracts should survive review.
Rothera, the CFTC-licensed exchange and clearinghouse tied to Robinhood’s joint venture with Susquehanna International Group, urged the CFTC to preserve “uniform federal administration” of event contracts traded on registered entities. It warned that state-by-state treatment could create fragmentation and diminished oversight, and asked the Commission to clarify when trading can be suspended, how consolidated reviews would work and how exchanges can seek prior approval or informal staff review for novel contracts.
Sporttrade drew on its experience as a state-regulated sports trading venue to support the CFTC’s distinction between aggregate sports contracts and single-action markets. The company said it “strongly agrees” that contracts tied to a single in-game action are more vulnerable to manipulation because one player, coach or official may be able to decide the outcome. But Sporttrade backed sports event contracts that rely on objective settlement data, information sharing, market surveillance and trading restrictions for athletes, officials and team staff.
Sports-focused operators ProphetX and Underdog made similar arguments, backing the proposal’s distinction between aggregate sports outcomes and higher-risk markets tied to injuries, officiating, discrete in-game actions or other narrow events.
Established derivatives exchanges warn about scope
Established derivatives exchanges sounded more cautious than newer prediction market operators. Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) said it supports responsible innovation and views prediction markets as a meaningful market development, but warned that the CFTC’s proposed public-interest test overlaps with the Core Principles that already govern DCMs, including baseline obligations to prevent manipulation, protect settlement integrity and enforce exchange rules.
ICE asked the CFTC to clarify that self-certification remains unchanged for contracts outside Regulation 40.11’s covered categories, as well as for traditional futures and options contracts. Without that clarification, ICE warned, the proposal could create uncertainty and impose unnecessary obligations on DCMs.
CME Group was more pointed about the line between event contracts and gaming. The exchange warned that the CFTC should not use Regulation 40.11 to review products that may belong under state gaming regulation rather than federal derivatives law. CME also said a settlement-focused test could make it harder to distinguish a regulated derivative from a sports wager when both settle on the same game result.
That skepticism echoed comments CME Chairman and CEO Terry Duffy made on the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call. Duffy said “a lot of these prediction markets on sports are gambling” and specifically criticized “small parlays and things of that nature.” CME’s regulatory comment was more technical, but it put the exchange at odds with newer event-contract operators seeking broader room for sports and combination markets under federal self-certification.
CFTC faces competing clarity demands
The comments largely supported the CFTC’s move toward contract-by-contract review, but they left the agency with competing requests. Kalshi, Polymarket and other newer event-contract operators want a final rule that preserves room for product development under CFTC oversight.
Traditional exchanges want the agency to make clear that the same framework will not unsettle existing derivatives rules or pull gaming products into federal markets simply because they are listed by a DCM.
That divide sits alongside separate comments from sports leagues and player unions, which pressed the CFTC for stronger safeguards around sports event contracts. Together, the filings show how much the final rule has to balance.
