CFTC enforcement chief David Miller told me at @nextpredictio that the agency has scrutinized insider trading cases tied to the 2026 midterms. "We’re watching" and "we’ll come after you" if you're a candidate or campaign staffer doing insider trading. cnn.com/2026/10/22/politics/…

Kalshi CEO @mansourtarek_ joins @nickgillespie to discuss why prediction markets are fundamentally different from sportsbooks, why states are trying to regulate them, and how prohibition drives markets offshore on the Reason Interview. reason.com/podcast/2026/10/2…

Market manipulation has no place in CFTC-regulated markets. With the midterm elections approaching, the @CFTC is closely monitoring prediction markets for attempts to distort trading activity or manipulate outcomes. Let me be clear: Those who manipulate our markets will be held accountable. @BloombergTV @tylerskendall

NEW from me in @NRO: Prediction markets aren't "just gambling," even for sports. nationalreview.com/2026/10/p…

EXCLUSIVE: A new study finds that political prediction market traders are not representative of all voters, but election market prices are more accurate than leading poll-based methods and not politically biased. The study found: ✅ In its first month of listing election contracts in 2024, Kalshi's prices beat every poll-based forecast (Silver Bulletin, FiveThirtyEight, The Economist) in the national race, all seven battleground states, and 19 Senate races ✅ A trader who believed the poll-based models and traded against Kalshi's national price would have lost 92 to 100 cents per dollar. ✅ No poll-based forecast would have been profitable to trade against Kalshi in any group of presidential contests. 💰 @Kalshi's 2024 election traders were 86% male and half were under 30. 🏠 Their home zip codes voted 28% for Trump. A market that priced its traders' politics would have leaned toward Harris, not Trump. Instead, 60% of the money went to Republican positions, and Kalshi priced Trump as the favorite through the final month. 🔢 The study used data from @Kalshi in 2024, @PredictIt in 2016, and New York betting markets from 1884 to 1940. ✍️The study was authored by @HarryDCrane, Professor of Statistics at @RutgersU and member of @CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee & @KolemanStrumpf, Burchfield Presidential Chair of Political Economy, Department of Economics, @WakeForest University. Story via @Rotowire Below

"These protections work best under one rulebook. When each state sets its own licensing terms and list of permitted contracts, exchanges must wall off users state by state, and the smaller pools produce forecasts that are less reliable and easier to manipulate," writes @bart_cleland:

“We operate like a stock market, like a financial exchange. We don't trade against our users,” @Kalshi cofounder @luanalopeslara said at #FortuneMPW, contrasting Kalshi with traditional sports betting. bit.ly/4hIX9d1

🚨🚨 CFTC @ChairmanSelig pushes back on claims that prediction markets are unregulated: “Insider trading, wash trading, manipulative strategies and fraud ... we regulate these in our derivatives markets every day.” “That’s exactly why we regulate these as markets.”

More brutal numbers for prediction markets in the Reuters poll: 75% of adults say it's gambling. Now we have the crosstabs: 81% among GOP, 79% among Dems, 69% with indies 45/9 support stricter regulation of prediction sites 90% say they've never used a prediction site

New Reuters poll is brutal for prediction markets: 75/8 say prediction sites are gambling 60/13 oppose election markets 43/29 oppose sports markets 65/8 oppose US military markets 63/9 oppose markets on US gov. policy decisions Broad opposition across party lines

What type of people are successful on Kalshi? We commissioned an independent third party to study our top traders. Here’s what they found: Top traders are not limited to privileged or financial backgrounds. -79% went to public school -They are over 2x as likely to have worked retail or service jobs than on Wall Street -65% are self-taught The majority of top traders: : -Actively seek out primary documents for research -Actively seek out conflicting sources to challenge their beliefs -Outperform the public on numeracy tests The findings echo the foundational work of Philip Tetlock: the best forecasters are not subject matter experts. They tend to be otherwise-ordinary people who are intellectually humble, willing to do research, and think probabilistically instead of emotionally.

So 39 states and DC marched into the Supreme Court today, asking the Justices to bless their power to treat prediction markets as illegal gambling. I can’t really explain just how wrong I think this is. These are federal financial contracts, traded on a federally licensed exchange, and they belong under one regulator: the CFTC. Their entire case leans on one idea: gambling is state turf, hands off. But that skips the only question that matters, which is what these contracts actually are... and what they are is financial instruments. Contracts on inflation, interest rates, Fed moves, energy prices. Even the Ninth Circuit, one of the rulings these states lean on, agreed those sit squarely with the CFTC. Federal. And here’s where I plant the flag: sports contracts belong there too. A contract on who wins the World Cup or the Super Bowl is fully collateralized, it trades on a federally licensed exchange, it clears under federal rules, the same plumbing as every other contract on the platform. Calling it a “bet” because there’s a game involved doesn’t move it out of federal hands. The venue and the instrument decide who regulates. Not whether a state wants to call it gambling. The Third Circuit got that right. Then the part that gets me. Flip through their own brief and they admit it, over and over: it’s chaos out there. Courts split three ways. A “turf war.” “Hopelessly confused.” Twenty-plus rulings pointing every direction. It IS a mess... but think about what that proves. One financial product, on one federal exchange, and fifty states each want their own rule for it? That’s not a reason to keep fifty referees on the field. That’s the best argument I’ve seen for one. Congress already picked it. The CFTC. These are federally regulated contracts, on a federally licensed exchange, overseen by the agency Congress built for exactly this. Saying “gambling” a hundred times doesn’t change what they are. One regulator. One rulebook.

Today we filed our opening brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to confirm the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction to regulate prediction markets. It's about who, not if. There's no debate around if prediction markets should be regulated. They should, and already are thanks to the Commodity Exchange Act. The real question is who does the regulating: the CFTC, which has overseen derivatives markets for over 50 years, or 50 different states, each applying its own priorities. Luckily, Congress has already answered. We're simply asking the court to confirm. Read more in our brief below. We are grateful for the court's careful consideration.

NFL tells Supreme Court prediction markets are gambling and should be regulated by the states cnbc.com/2026/10/08/nfl-tell…