Contact us
Share on LinkedIn

Prediction Markets: A Primer for Market Participants

Prediction markets are specialized platforms where participants buy and sell derivative contracts based on the occurrence or non-occurrence of specific future events. In practice, they function as information aggregation vehicles: contract prices reflect the market’s collective view of the probability of an outcome. For institutional and retail participants, the key issues are not just market utility, but also legal classification, exchange structure, and the boundaries of acceptable contract design. This primer is based on the CFTC’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on prediction markets.

Why this matters now

Prediction markets have moved from a niche corner of derivatives into a more visible part of the market structure debate. The core appeal is straightforward: they can improve price discovery by converting dispersed views into a tradable price. That makes them relevant to firms thinking about hedging, market signals, and new product development.

At the same time, event contracts sit close to a regulatory boundary that matters. Questions about whether a contract is a swap, a future, or something that should not be listed at all are not academic, they determine who can trade, on what venue, under which rules, and with what safeguards. As volumes and product breadth expand, those classification and oversight questions become more consequential.

1) Asset class and legal classification

In the United States, the instruments traded on prediction markets are generally referred to as event contracts. While that is not a formally defined term in the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) uses it to describe derivative contracts that typically have a binary payoff structure, paying either a fixed amount or zero depending on whether a specified event occurs.

Under the CEA, these contracts are generally understood through three related lenses:

  1. Swaps: They may be treated as binary options where the payoff depends on an event associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.
  2. Futures contracts: They may also fall within the framework for contracts involving the future delivery of a commodity.
  3. Excluded commodities: The underlying reference events, such as weather outcomes, political outcomes, or economic indicators, will often fit within the concept of an excluded commodity when they are beyond the control of the parties and tied to financial consequences.

For market participants, that classification exercise matters because it drives the applicable regulatory perimeter and determines how a venue can lawfully list and clear the product.

2) Market infrastructure and oversight

The CFTC oversees event contracts listed on CFTC-registered DCMs and SEFs when those contracts are structured as swaps or futures. The CFTC notice also notes that other event contracts may be security-based swaps or other instruments subject to SEC jurisdiction.

Participants generally encounter three types of registered infrastructure:

  • Designated Contract Markets (DCMs): Exchanges registered to list swaps or futures for the general public.
  • Swap Execution Facilities (SEFs): Trading venues limited to eligible contract participants, which means institutional rather than retail access.
  • Derivatives Clearing Organizations (DCOs): The clearing entities responsible for clearing and settlement, and for preserving the financial integrity of the transaction lifecycle.

This distinction is important because the same general product concept can have very different access, reporting, and risk-management implications depending on the execution and clearing model.

3) Regulatory requirements and core principles

The CFTC proposal highlights several DCM Core Principles that are especially important in the event-contract context. Three stand out:

  • Anti-manipulation (Principle 3): A market should only list contracts that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.
  • Market surveillance (Principle 4): The exchange must be able to monitor trading activity and identify conduct that could distort prices or disrupt settlement.
  • Financial integrity (Principle 11): The venue must maintain rules that protect customer funds and preserve transaction integrity.

Today, event contracts are generally fully collateralized. In the CFTC proposal, the Commission specifically asks whether prediction markets should be permitted to offer trading on margin, and if so, what risk, disclosure, and clearing safeguards would be appropriate.

4) The public-interest filter

The CFTC also has a distinct gatekeeping power under CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C): it may prohibit contracts that it determines are contrary to the public interest. The statute specifically points to contracts involving:

  1. Unlawful activity under Federal or State law.
  2. Terrorism.
  3. Assassination.
  4. War.
  5. Gaming.
  6. Other similar activities defined by Commission rulemaking.

For exchanges and product designers, this is more than a disclosure issue. It is a threshold listing question. A contract can be operationally well designed and still face challenge if the underlying subject matter is viewed as crossing the public-interest line.

5) Emerging trends and risks

The sector has expanded rapidly. The CFTC notice states that since 2021 the Commission has observed a significant increase in the number of event contracts listed for trading, as well as greater diversity in the types of underlying events. That growth has moved several issues to the front of the regulatory agenda.

Inside information

One live question is how to think about inside information in these markets. On one hand, informed trading can make prices more accurate and improve the information value of the market. On the other, materially asymmetric information can create fairness concerns and increase the risk of manipulation or loss of confidence in price formation.

Blockchain-based markets

Another issue is the rise of prediction markets built on distributed ledger technology. Here the challenge is not simply whether the product is permissible, but how existing exchange, compliance, and enforcement rules should apply when core functions are distributed across on-chain infrastructure.

Operational risk

Operational resilience is also central. Under Core Principle 20, DCMs are expected to maintain secure and scalable automated systems. As prediction markets grow, that means operational failure is not just a technology problem, it becomes a market integrity issue with implications for execution, surveillance, and settlement.

Practical takeaways

  • For institutional participants: Focus on venue type, clearing design, and whether the product is structured for public access or limited to eligible contract participants.
  • For retail participants: Access depends heavily on whether the contract is listed on a DCM and offered within the relevant regulatory framework.
  • For product and legal teams: The hardest questions are often not about coding the contract, but about classification, public-interest boundaries, surveillance, and treatment of non-public information.

Closing thought

Prediction markets are being evaluated by the CFTC through the lenses of price discovery, risk management, market integrity, and the public interest. The CFTC proposal does not settle those debates; it asks how event contracts should be classified, supervised, margined, and assessed when non-public information or sensitive underlying activities are involved. Firms following this market should pay close attention to how the Commission develops its thinking on contract eligibility, clearing, operational resilience, and the boundaries of permissible event design.

Get in touch to find out more about Cumulus9.