The CFTC has filed an amicus brief in a federal criminal case involving alleged insider trading on Polymarket event contracts, putting prediction markets back under the regulatory spotlight.
The case centers on a soldier accused of trading around non-public information in event contracts. The CFTC’s involvement matters because it gives the agency another chance to explain how event contracts fit within federal swaps law, especially when the underlying market is tied to political, geopolitical, or real-world outcomes.
This is not a routine crypto exchange case.
It sits at the edge of crypto, prediction markets, derivatives law, and insider-trading theory. That makes it useful for understanding where regulators may draw lines as event markets become more visible.
For more details, visit the official Cftc platform.
The CFTC regulates derivatives markets, including certain swaps and event contracts.
Prediction markets are difficult because they can look like information markets, betting markets, political markets, or derivatives markets depending on structure. When users trade contracts tied to future events, regulators often ask whether those contracts function like swaps or other regulated instruments.
Polymarket has sat inside that debate for years.
The platform lets users trade on real-world outcomes. That can create useful price discovery, but it also raises concerns around manipulation, market integrity, political incentives, and access to non-public information.
A criminal case involving alleged insider trading gives the CFTC a chance to weigh in on the legal framework.
Event contracts are no longer a niche curiosity.
Markets tied to elections, court decisions, economic data, wars, policy outcomes, and corporate events have attracted more attention from traders and regulators. As participation grows, the same questions that apply to traditional markets start appearing.
Who has material non-public information? What counts as manipulation? How should platforms monitor trading? When does an event contract become a regulated derivative? How should enforcement work when the underlying event is not a company earnings release, but a public outcome?
Those questions are still being developed.
Insider trading cases are usually associated with securities markets.
A person has confidential corporate information, trades before the market learns it, and profits from the informational advantage. Event contracts can create similar incentives, but the information may come from military, political, legal, or government contexts rather than corporate boardrooms.
That makes the Polymarket-related case unusual.
If someone trades event contracts using non-public information about real-world events, regulators and prosecutors may argue that market integrity is harmed even though the contract is not a traditional stock or bond.
That is likely why the case matters beyond one defendant.
The filing should not be treated as a final ruling against Polymarket or prediction markets generally.
An amicus brief is a legal position submitted to assist the court. It is not a conviction. It is not a final regulatory rule. It does not settle every question around event contracts.
The court still needs to handle the case on its own facts.
Still, the CFTC’s view can influence how judges understand the market structure around event contracts.
Prediction markets are moving closer to mainstream finance.
That means they will face more scrutiny. As volumes grow, regulators will care more about surveillance, market access, insider information, manipulation, and whether platforms are offering products that require registration.
The CFTC’s involvement in this case shows that event contracts are no longer being ignored.
For crypto markets, the message is clear: prediction markets may be innovative, but they are not outside the regulatory perimeter.
This article is based on CFTC filings and related court materials in the Polymarket event contract case.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by Cftc. at Cftc
Everyone tells you to use a VPN on Polymarket. Here’s why that’s the wrong advice.
I spent an evening testing VPN advice from three different forums before realizing I was solving the wrong problem. The international Polymarket exchange geoblocks US IPs — a VPN masks your location, sure, but you’re still violating the platform’s own terms, and results were inconsistent server to server. Meanwhile there’s a second, completely legal option most VPN guides don’t even mention, and it changes what the right advice actually is depending on what you’re trying to do.
Here’s the number that changed how I think about this: a standard sportsbook prices 1.95/1.85 odds at roughly 5.3% built-in margin. The terminal I use on Polymarket’s liquidity charges a flat 1% of volume instead — visible before you confirm, not something a VPN changes either way.
This is the detail most guides get wrong by treating “Polymarket” as one thing. The international exchange (polymarket.com) remains geoblocked for US IPs — no signups, no new positions from a US IP. Separately, a CFTC-regulated “Polymarket US” exchange launched in December 2025 after Polymarket acquired a licensed derivatives exchange, giving it Designated Contract Market status — the same regulatory tier as major traditional futures exchanges. That’s a real, legal, US-accessible platform — just a different product from the one most content assumes you’re asking about when it recommends a VPN.
The distinction matters because the advice for each is completely different. For the international exchange, a VPN is a workaround for a platform-level restriction, and it’s against that platform’s own terms regardless of whether it technically works. For Polymarket US, there’s nothing to work around — it’s built specifically to be accessible from the US, at the cost of requiring full identity verification.
Polymarket US ran invite-only behind a waitlist for about six months after its December 2025 launch. The waitlist was dropped in May 2026 — the iOS app is now open to US users without an invite code. Android and web versions hadn’t shipped as of this writing, which is worth checking before you assume full access on your device.
Signing up directly for Polymarket US requires full KYC — identity verification, the opposite of the no-passport model the international exchange (or a gateway to it) offers. State restrictions add another layer: Minnesota banned prediction markets outright as of August 2026, and more than a dozen states have issued cease-and-desist orders against various operators in this category. Check your specific state before assuming access, because “US-legal” doesn’t automatically mean legal in your particular state — the two lists don’t fully overlap.
There’s also a device gap worth knowing about: as of this writing, Polymarket US is live on iOS but Android and web versions haven’t shipped yet. If your device isn’t iOS, the “just sign up for the legal one” advice doesn’t actually work for you yet, regardless of which state you’re in.
The instinct behind “use a VPN” is understandable — it’s the standard advice for any geoblocked service, and it works for plenty of them. The problem is that it treats the international exchange’s restriction as purely technical, when part of it is contractual. Even a VPN that successfully masks your IP doesn’t change what you agreed to in the platform’s terms of service, and enforcement isn’t limited to IP detection alone.
There isn’t a “best” VPN for this because the problem isn’t really about hiding your IP — it’s about which product you’re trying to access and under what terms. A VPN pointed at the international exchange still puts you in breach of that platform’s own terms of service, and detection methods change without notice, so what worked last month may not work today.
The whole premise of “use a VPN” assumed there was no legal alternative — that’s no longer accurate. Polymarket US exists, is CFTC-regulated, and is legally open to US residents in supported states. The honest advice now splits in two: go through KYC for the regulated US product, or use a gateway built specifically to route around the international exchange’s geoblock without pretending to be somewhere you’re not.
For sports and esports markets specifically, without full KYC, a terminal on the international exchange’s liquidity is the option — not a VPN, a purpose-built gateway.
overdog.bet is what I use day to day. My trade history is on the proof page — public.
Canada doesn’t have a nationwide restriction — it varies by province. BC, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec apply close-only mode on the international exchange, the same soft restriction the US used to have exclusively before Polymarket US launched. Other provinces currently have none. There’s no separate “Polymarket Canada” regulated product the way there now is for the US — Canadians are still dealing with the single-platform situation the US moved past.
Australia’s restriction works differently from both the US and Canada — ACMA blocked access at the ISP level in August 2025, which means the block happens before the site even loads, not at the platform’s own discretion. A VPN changes what an ISP-level check sees; whether that’s a good idea depends on the same terms-of-service question as everywhere else.
Can you use Polymarket with a VPN? Technically the site may load, but you’re still violating the international exchange’s terms, and results vary — some connections still get flagged despite a VPN. It solves the wrong layer of the problem for most people; a gateway or the regulated US product both address it more directly.
Responsible gambling isn’t a line to skip. If trading stops being a deliberate decision and starts being a way to cover a budget gap, that’s a reason to pause, not size up.
How to Use Polymarket in the US in 2026: VPNs, Geoblocks and What Actually Routes was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
I’ve traded on both for about a year now, so here’s the version that skips the marketing comparison tables. The short version: they’re not interchangeable, and which one you can even use often gets decided for you by where you live.
The fee structures aren’t even measured the same way. A standard sportsbook prices in roughly 5.3% margin on a typical two-way line (1.95/1.85 odds). Kalshi charges per contract instead — a cent or two depending on price, no flat percentage. The terminal I use on Polymarket’s liquidity charges a flat 1% of volume. Three different units, which makes “which is cheaper” depend entirely on how you trade, not just which platform you pick.
Kalshi is a CFTC-regulated Designated Contract Market — a federally regulated exchange, which is exactly why it’s legal in states like Texas where traditional sportsbooks aren’t. Polymarket isn’t CFTC-registered the same way, which is part of why its US access situation is closer to “restricted” than Kalshi’s “regulated and open.”
That regulatory gap shows up in practice as two different products with overlapping goals. Kalshi’s federal registration means it can operate openly across most US states without the geoblocking Polymarket applies. Polymarket’s advantage runs the other direction — deeper liquidity specifically in sports and esports categories, built up over a longer operating history in that niche, even without the same US regulatory clearance.
Kalshi fees run roughly $0.01–$0.02 per contract depending on where the price sits, and the charge doesn’t change by which state you’re trading from. For high-volume, low-price trades this adds up differently than a percentage-of-volume model — worth actually running the math for your own trading pattern rather than assuming one fee structure is universally cheaper.
Run your own trade volume through both fee structures before picking one — a cents-per-contract model and a percentage-of-volume model cross over at different points depending on contract price and size. There’s no single answer that holds for every trader; the comparison only means something once you plug in your own numbers.
Robinhood has moved into event contracts too, layering prediction markets onto an app most people already have for stocks. It’s worth knowing about as a comparison point — one more sign this category isn’t a niche experiment anymore, it’s attracting mainstream brokerages, not just crypto-native platforms.
“Best” depends entirely on what you’re optimizing for. Regulatory clarity in the US points toward Kalshi. Sports and esports market depth is where a terminal built on Polymarket’s liquidity — like the one I use — tends to have the edge, since that’s specifically what it’s built around rather than being one category among many alongside politics, economics, and culture.
Anyone answering “which is best” without asking what you’re trading is skipping the part of the question that actually determines the answer.
An app being polished doesn’t tell you about liquidity depth in the specific category you actually trade. A clean interface with a thin order book in your market of interest is worse than a rougher one with real volume behind it — check the book before judging the app.
DraftKings, a sportsbook by origin, has been moving into prediction-market-style contracts too — the reverse direction from Kalshi and Polymarket, which started as exchanges and are picking up sports coverage. Worth watching which direction the category consolidates toward.
Kalshi is the most-discussed. Robinhood and DraftKings are newer entrants approaching from different starting points — a brokerage and a sportsbook respectively. None of them are identical products; they’re solving overlapping but not identical problems, and lumping them together in one “best of” list obscures more than it explains.
Picking between them isn’t really about finding “the winner” — it’s about matching the regulatory situation and category depth to what you’re actually trying to trade. Someone focused on US election markets has different priorities than someone focused on NFL game outcomes, and the right platform for one isn’t automatically right for the other.
If Kalshi doesn’t cover a market you want, or you’re outside its accessible regions, a terminal on Polymarket’s liquidity is the alternative — specifically strong on sports and esports coverage rather than the broader mixed-category approach Kalshi takes.
Canada’s situation is easy to get wrong. Wealthsimple, a major Canadian brokerage, got regulatory approval to offer event contracts to Canadian users — but sports was explicitly excluded from that approval. That’s the detail most coverage skips: Canadians can access some Kalshi-style event contracts through Wealthsimple, just not sports ones.
For sports specifically, that gap is exactly what a sports-focused terminal fills. It’s a distinction worth being precise about, because a Canadian reader searching “Kalshi Canada” is likely to land on coverage that talks about event contracts generally without mentioning that the one category they probably care about — sports — isn’t part of what’s currently permitted through that specific channel.
Access — wallet created automatically, no separate signup form.
Deposit — USDT, network fee shown as its own line.
Pick a sports or esports market on the live board.
Trade — contract price set by the order book, flat 1% fee shown before confirming.
overdog.bet is what I use for sports and esports specifically. My trade history sits on the proof page — public.
Is Kalshi legal in Texas? Yes — Kalshi is a CFTC-regulated federal exchange, which puts it outside Texas gambling law entirely, unlike a state-licensed sportsbook.
Is Kalshi legal? Legal federally as a CFTC-regulated exchange, available in most US states. A handful of states have pushed back on specific contract categories, so availability isn’t perfectly uniform everywhere.
Is Kalshi legal in Canada? Not directly as Kalshi — but Wealthsimple offers similar event contracts under its own regulatory approval, with sports specifically excluded from what’s currently permitted.
Responsible gambling isn’t a line to skip. If trading stops being a deliberate decision and starts being a way to cover a budget gap, that’s a reason to pause, not size up.
Kalshi vs Polymarket 2026: Fees, Liquidity, Legality and Which You Can Actually Use was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
I opened Polymarket from a US IP out of curiosity and got the geoblock screen everyone talks about. The site loaded fine, prices were visible, but the trade button wouldn’t confirm. Spent the weekend working out exactly what’s blocked, what isn’t, and what “is Polymarket legal in the US” actually means in practice.
Here’s the number that actually matters: on a standard sportsbook, two-way odds of 1.95 and 1.85 work out to 1/1.95 + 1/1.85 = 1.053 — a built-in 5.3% margin, taken regardless of outcome. A prediction-market terminal built on top of Polymarket charges a flat 1% of volume instead, shown before you confirm, not buried in the price.
Short answer: using the platform to view markets is legal everywhere in the US. What’s restricted is opening a new position directly from a US IP — Polymarket applies a close-only mode to US users, not a full block. You can browse, you can close existing positions, you can’t open new ones through the direct interface.
“Banned” implies the site doesn’t load. It does — instantly, with no sign of a network-level block. “Fully legal” implies no restriction at all, which also isn’t quite right. Polymarket restricts new position openings from US IPs at the exchange level. That’s separate from state-by-state gambling law, and separate from how ISP-level blocks work in other countries.
The distinction matters practically. A network block by an ISP can only be worked around by routing traffic differently. An exchange-level close-only policy is the platform’s own choice, applied the same way regardless of which US state the request comes from. A gateway that routes the trade through a different path addresses it.
California doesn’t add a separate state-level restriction on top of the exchange’s own geoblock — the close-only mode applies the same way across all fifty states, including California. State prediction-market and sports-betting law hasn’t caught up to this specific category yet, which is part of why the exchange handles it at the platform level instead of waiting on individual states to legislate separately.
Outside the close-only list, Polymarket works without restriction in most jurisdictions. Full access is blocked entirely in only four countries — Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. Everywhere else falls into one of two categories: unrestricted, or close-only like the US.
Close-only mode currently covers roughly 30 jurisdictions beyond the US, including the UK and Brazil — same soft restriction, same platform-level reason. A separate, smaller group of countries block access at the network level instead: Spain, Argentina, Colombia, India, Portugal, Italy, and Australia route the restriction through local ISPs, not through the exchange itself. Both show some kind of blocked screen, but the fix for each is different — a gateway solves the exchange-level restriction, not an ISP-level one.
Close-only: US, UK, Brazil, and roughly 30 more. ISP-blocked: Spain, Argentina, Colombia, India, Portugal, Italy, Australia. Fully inaccessible regardless of workaround: Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea — just four countries total, out of roughly 190.
Canada doesn’t have a nationwide block — restrictions vary by province. BC, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec apply close-only mode at the exchange level, the same mechanism as the US restriction. Other provinces currently have no restriction at all, which is easy to miss if you’re reading US-focused coverage and assuming the rule applies the same way north of the border.
Australia’s case is different again — ACMA’s August 2025 action blocked access at the ISP level, the network-block category, not the exchange’s own close-only system. That means the geoblock screen US traders see isn’t what Australian users hit at all; for them, the restriction happens before the site ever loads, at the provider level.
Access — no geoblock screen at all when routed through a gateway terminal instead of the direct exchange interface, since the request path doesn’t originate from a flagged US IP the same way.
Wallet — created automatically on first visit, no separate signup form, no personal information collected at any point.
Deposit — USDT, network fee shown as its own line item, not folded into an exchange rate the way it sometimes is elsewhere.
Trade — contract price set by the order book, gateway takes a flat 1% of volume, visible before the trade confirms, not calculated after the fact.
overdog.bet is the terminal I used to check this myself — sports and esports markets specifically, covering 19 sports and 12 esports titles, all running on the same underlying exchange.
Numbers I checked against my own trades are on the proof page — it’s public, no support ticket required to see the history.
Can you use Polymarket in the US? You can view and close positions from any US state. Opening new positions directly is restricted by the exchange’s close-only mode, separate from state gambling law.
Can I use Polymarket in the US? Same answer regardless of which state — the restriction is applied by the exchange itself, not by individual state regulators, so it doesn’t vary state to state.
Why is Polymarket banned in US? It isn’t banned outright — the close-only mode is the exchange’s own policy choice, not a US regulatory ban. The site remains fully viewable and existing positions can still be closed.
When will Polymarket be legal in the US? No public timeline exists for lifting close-only mode. The distinction from an outright ban matters here — there’s no law to repeal, just a platform policy that could change independently of any regulatory action.
Can you use Polymarket in Canada? Is Polymarket available in Canada? Depends on the province. BC, Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec are close-only, same mechanism as the US. Other provinces currently have no restriction.
Can I use Polymarket in Canada? Can Canadians use Polymarket? Yes, with the same province-by-province caveat — check which of the four restricted provinces applies before assuming access works the same way everywhere in the country.
Is Polymarket banned in Australia? Does Polymarket work in Australia? Access is blocked at the ISP level following ACMA’s August 2025 action — this is a network-level block, not the exchange’s own close-only mode.
Why is Polymarket banned in Australia? Can Australians use Polymarket? The block originates from ACMA, Australia’s communications regulator, not from Polymarket itself — which is why the restriction mechanism looks different from what US or Canadian users experience.
Responsible gambling isn’t a line to skip. If trading stops being a deliberate decision and starts being a way to cover a budget gap, that’s a reason to pause, not size up. More on the responsible gambling page.
Is Polymarket Legal in the US? Restricted States, the Geoblock and What Still Works (2026) was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Polymarket priced the World Cup in real time for over a month — every match, every stage, tournament winner odds moving by the hour as results came in. Now that it’s over, the more interesting question isn’t whether the market “worked.” It’s where it was sharp and where it wasn’t, because the gap between the two tells you more about how prediction markets actually function than any single correct call does.
Group-stage outcomes priced tightly against actual results almost every time. When a heavy favorite faced a weak opponent, Polymarket’s implied probability tracked close to how those matchups have historically played out — nothing revolutionary, but a solid baseline signal that the market was reading available information correctly rather than just following public sentiment.
The more telling accuracy showed up in tournament-winner odds after the quarterfinal stage. Once the field narrowed, pricing tightened fast around two or three realistic contenders, and it stayed there — no wild swings on rumor, no overreaction to a single strong group-stage performance. That stability is exactly what you’d want from a market that’s actually aggregating information well, rather than one just chasing headlines.
The clearest miss of the tournament was Germany. Entering the round of 32 against Paraguay, Germany sat at 10th in the FIFA rankings against Paraguay’s 41st, and pricing reflected that gap heavily in Germany’s favor — a four-time champion against a team that had opened the tournament with a 4–1 loss to the US. Paraguay took a first-half lead through Julio Enciso, Germany equalized through Kai Havertz, and the match went to penalties, where Paraguay won 4–3 — Germany’s first-ever World Cup shootout defeat, and one of the biggest upsets in the tournament’s knockout-stage history. The pricing wasn’t wrong to favor Germany; it was wrong to favor them as heavily as a 31-place ranking gap implied, in a single-elimination match that comes down to 90 minutes plus a coin-flip-adjacent shootout.
The broader miss was penalty shootouts generally, and the numbers back that up in an unexpected way: penalty conversion across the tournament dropped to 65% — the worst rate since 1966. Beyond Germany-Paraguay, the Netherlands were knocked out by Morocco in the round of 32 as well, another top-ranked side upset by a team pricing had clearly favored going in. Pre-match odds on matches that looked headed for a shootout consistently leaned toward the favorite, even as the tournament was quietly setting a decades-long record for missed kicks — the format doesn’t care much about the 90 minutes that preceded it, and this year it barely cared about accuracy at all.
A market being right when the answer is obvious isn’t informative. Group-stage favorites usually win — you don’t need a prediction market to tell you that, a basic power ranking gets you most of the way there. The value in prediction markets shows up specifically in the harder cases: correctly weighting a 31-rank underdog’s live chances once a match is level and heading to penalties, or resisting the pull to treat a shootout as anything but close to random once it arrives.
By that standard, the World Cup market did well on the easy calls and priced Germany-Paraguay like the seed rankings mattered more than they did once the game turned into a coin flip. The volume and speed of price discovery were genuinely impressive — Paraguay’s win alone generated one of the tournament’s most-traded markets in the hours after. The edge over a good analyst’s gut read was smaller than the hype around prediction markets usually suggests, and a tournament that set a decades-long record for missed penalties is exactly the environment where that blind spot shows up hardest.
The practical lesson isn’t “trust the market” or “fade the market” — it’s knowing which category a given bet falls into. Markets on questions the crowd can price well from public information (is Team A meaningfully better than Team B) deserve real weight. Markets on questions that hinge on information the crowd doesn’t have — internal fitness reports, fatigue that hasn’t shown up in results yet — deserve more skepticism, because the price is often just reflecting the same public story everyone already knows, not some deeper insight.
If you’re trading sports markets on Polymarket going forward, the World Cup run is a useful data point: the market is a solid baseline, not an oracle, and the gap between those two is exactly where an attentive trader finds value.
For anyone looking to trade markets like these directly, Overdog connects to Polymarket’s contracts through Telegram — same markets, same pricing, no separate site access required.
What Prediction Markets Got Right (and Wrong) About the World Cup was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A judge in Seattle ordered Kalshi to shut down large parts of its prediction market in Washington state by Sept. 2 — less than three weeks from now — and denied the New York-based company’s attempt to pause the order while it appeals the ruling.
The order by King County Superior Court Judge John McHale, issued Wednesday, requires Kalshi to geofence Washington users out of markets for sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, tech and science, and “mentions,” contracts on whether public figures will say specific words.
Kalshi can continue offering markets on commodities, climate, economics, and finance in the state. Users will also be allowed to close out positions they already hold in the prohibited categories.
The order sets a $120,000-a-day penalty if Kalshi misses the Sept. 2 deadline, although Kalshi can also submit an affidavit explaining any delay and let the court determine the final penalty.
That penalty would match what Nevada regulators are separately seeking from Kalshi in a June contempt motion for allegedly failing to comply with a similar injunction there.
In his ruling, McHale wrote that Kalshi “willfully ignored” a Washington State Gambling Commission notice from December 2025 stating that event-based contracts are not authorized in the state. He also concluded that “the public interests at stake and potential harm to consumers” outweigh harm to Kalshi from the injunction.
Kalshi disputed the premise of the ruling on Thursday, reiterating its position that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission “has exclusive jurisdiction” over the exchange.
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering all legal options,” spokesperson Jacki McGavick said in a statement responding to the ruling.
Attorney General Nick Brown, who brought the suit, said in a statement that Kalshi “has gotten rich promoting wagers on sports, elections, natural disasters, events related to the Iran War, and more.”
However, Kalshi said its platform does not offer markets on wildfires, war, death, or terrorism. Kalshi has disputed reporting that has grouped its platform with rival Polymarket, which has drawn scrutiny for wildfire and other markets Kalshi says it doesn’t allow.
Kalshi had asked both McHale and the state Court of Appeals to pause the injunction pending appeal, and lost at both levels: a Court of Appeals commissioner denied an emergency stay request Monday, and McHale entered his own denial Wednesday with his larger order.
It’s the latest development in a case that Brown filed in March. McHale granted a preliminary injunction on July 20, finding Washington was likely to prove Kalshi is running illegal online gambling and rejecting the federal preemption argument. Kalshi appealed to the Court of Appeals and brought in former U.S. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal for its defense.
Kalshi’s remaining state-court options include asking a full Court of Appeals panel to review the commissioner’s ruling, or seeking emergency review at the Washington Supreme Court.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Dips As Crypto Clarity Act Hopes Fade
Bitcoin’s price slid further on Tuesday as investors weighed up the chances of lawmakers voting on the long-awaited crypto Clarity Act.
The price of Bitcoin was recently $63,634 after sliding 2% over a 24-hour period. The cryptocurrency dropped as low as $62,784 at one point.
Market observers now give the Clarity Act a 35% chance of getting signed into law this year on crypto betting platform Polymarket.
While major financial institutions like Fidelity and Goldman Sachs have thrown their weight behind the new bill, some Democrats are still unhappy with it in its current form. A group of Democrats last week said in a statement that the bill in its current form falls short.
A number of lawmakers are hoping the bill gets passed before Congress departs for August recess.
U.S. lawmakers have an action packed week of voting before its five-week recess, including sweeping Russian energy sanctions.
JUST IN:
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 28, 2026
"The Clarity Act helps grow the American economy…CLARITY will allow us to make sure that we are the center of the action on digital assets, blockchain, and the internet in general."
Despite being passed in the house of representatives last year with strong bipartisan support, the Clarity Act has been in a deadlock for much of 2026, partially because big bankers raised concerns over stablecoin yield among Democrat concerns around ethics language.
Banking lobbyists have said that if crypto exchanges pay attractive yields to customers, banks could lose their deposit base.
An updated bill of the Clarity Act was introduced last week that addressed the ethics concerns, banning government officials and their families from issuing or promoting crypto.
Republicans are hoping to gain bipartisan support for the bill this week to advance the legislation. If passed, the long-awaited bill would create a regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency market.
This post Bitcoin Dips As Crypto Clarity Act Hopes Fade first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
France’s National Gambling Authority has ordered internet service providers to block access to Polymarket, putting the prediction-market platform back under regulatory pressure in one of Europe’s largest markets.
The ANJ said its president issued the network-level blocking request on July 16. The regulator framed Polymarket as an illegal gambling operation and cited concerns including consumer addiction, lack of know-your-customer controls, and the potential manipulation of betting outcomes.
One example mentioned by the regulator involved weather data manipulation, which shows how broad the concern is. Prediction markets do not only cover elections or crypto prices. They can involve real-world outcomes where the line between forecasting, betting, and market influence becomes uncomfortable for regulators.
This is not an EU-wide ban. It is a French order. But it is still a warning shot for the prediction-market sector.
Prediction markets have always had a regulatory identity problem.
Supporters describe them as information markets. Users trade on probabilities, and prices can reveal what the crowd believes about future events. That can be useful, especially when markets are liquid and participants have strong incentives to be accurate.
Regulators often see something much simpler: betting.
A user puts money behind an outcome. The outcome resolves. The user wins or loses. If that activity is offered to residents without local authorization, gambling regulators tend to get involved.
That is the tension Polymarket is facing in France.
The platform may be crypto-native, global, and built around market pricing, but the ANJ is treating access through the lens of gambling law and consumer protection.
For prediction markets, that is a difficult problem to escape.
The ANJ’s concern around KYC is important.
Regulators do not only care that people are betting. They care who is betting, how users are onboarded, whether minors can access the service, whether problem gambling protections exist, and whether suspicious activity can be monitored.
Crypto prediction markets can be especially hard for regulators because they often operate across borders and use digital wallets rather than conventional accounts.
That creates a mismatch.
A platform can be accessible from a jurisdiction even if it is not licensed there. Users can reach it through normal internet access. Funds can move through crypto rails. That makes enforcement harder, so regulators sometimes turn to ISP blocking.
Blocking does not necessarily eliminate access completely. Users may use VPNs or other workarounds. But it raises friction and sends a clear message to platforms, payment providers, and local users.
The ANJ’s reference to possible manipulation of betting outcomes is also worth taking seriously.
In financial markets, manipulation usually means trying to move the price of an asset. In prediction markets, manipulation can mean something stranger: trying to influence the real-world event itself.
That concern depends heavily on the market.
Some outcomes are too large for traders to influence. Others may be more vulnerable. Weather data, niche events, small elections, lower-liquidity markets, or outcomes based on specific data sources can create awkward incentives.
If a market pays out based on an event that someone can influence, regulators may see added consumer and public-interest risks.
That does not mean every prediction market is dangerous. But it helps explain why gambling authorities may not be convinced by the “information market” framing.
Polymarket has become one of the most visible prediction-market platforms in crypto.
Its growth has shown that users want markets on politics, macro events, sports, culture, crypto outcomes, and almost anything else that can be resolved with a data source. That demand is real.
But regulatory pressure is real too.
France’s action shows that national regulators are willing to use existing gambling powers against crypto-native prediction markets. Other countries may look at similar tools if they believe unlicensed platforms are targeting local users.
For Polymarket and rivals, the path forward may require more jurisdiction-specific controls, licensing strategies, KYC layers, or restricted access.
That could make the user experience less open, but it may be necessary if prediction markets want to operate at scale.
The larger question is whether prediction markets can find a regulatory category that separates useful forecasting from unlicensed gambling. Until that happens, platforms may keep running into country-by-country enforcement.
France has now made its view clear: if Polymarket is accessible to French users without authorization, it can be blocked.
This article is based on the French National Gambling Authority’s blocking order relating to Polymarket.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.
Polymarket traders are pricing in a high probability that the Federal Reserve holds rates steady at its July meeting, with odds rising to 94% after softer inflation data improved the market’s macro mood.
That matters for Bitcoin because rate expectations remain one of the most important forces shaping risk appetite. When inflation cools, traders usually become more confident that the Fed can avoid further tightening. That can support equities, crypto, and other risk assets because the market starts looking ahead to easier liquidity conditions.
Bitcoin has spent much of this cycle trading at the intersection of macro expectations and crypto-native demand. ETF flows, institutional access, and on-chain activity all matter, but inflation and interest-rate expectations still set the tone for how aggressively investors are willing to take risk.
The latest Polymarket move shows how quickly that macro sentiment can shift.
Reference: Polymarket
Bitcoin is often described as a hedge against monetary instability, but in practice it also trades like a high-beta liquidity asset.
When traders expect higher rates, the market usually becomes more cautious. Cash yields become more attractive, leverage becomes more expensive, and speculative assets can come under pressure. When traders expect the Fed to pause or eventually cut rates, risk appetite often improves.
That is why prediction-market odds matter.
Polymarket is not the Federal Reserve. It does not decide policy. But it gives a live view of how traders are pricing the probability of different outcomes. A 94% probability of a hold tells the market that traders see further tightening as unlikely in the immediate term.
That can make Bitcoin more attractive, especially if investors believe the worst of the inflation pressure is passing.
The supporting inflation backdrop is important here. The available source material points to July 14 CPI data showing annual inflation falling to 3.5%, down from 4.2% in May. A softer inflation reading gives the Fed more room to stay patient.
The macro story becomes more important when it lines up with crypto-specific flows.
The repaired pack notes that spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net inflows of $132.3 million on July 17, led by BlackRock’s IBIT. If that flow picture holds, it suggests Bitcoin is not only benefiting from a better macro tone but also seeing renewed demand through regulated investment products.
That combination is powerful.
Macro improves the environment. ETF flows show whether investors are actually allocating. Bitcoin tends to respond best when both line up. A better inflation print without follow-through buying can fade quickly. ETF inflows during a hostile macro period can still struggle. Together, they give traders a stronger reason to pay attention.
That said, one day of flows is not enough to declare a new trend. ETF data can be volatile, and Polymarket odds can move as new economic data or Fed commentary arrives. The useful point is that the immediate setup has improved from where it was during the outflow-heavy period.
For Bitcoin bulls, the question is whether this becomes a sustained shift or just a short-term relief move.
A 94% prediction-market probability is a strong signal, but the Fed still sets policy based on its own data and mandate.
Officials will be watching inflation, labour-market conditions, financial conditions, and whether price pressure is cooling fast enough to justify a more relaxed stance. A single CPI reading helps, but it does not eliminate the risk of sticky inflation or hawkish guidance.
That is why Bitcoin traders need to treat the Polymarket move as a sentiment signal, not a guarantee.
If the Fed holds and its language is softer, Bitcoin could benefit from a cleaner risk-on setup. If the Fed holds but sounds cautious, the market reaction may be more muted. If future inflation data surprises higher, current odds can unwind quickly.
For now, the market is leaning toward a pause, and Bitcoin is reflecting that improved mood.
The bigger takeaway is that prediction markets are becoming part of the crypto macro toolkit. Traders no longer wait only for Fed statements or analyst notes. They watch live odds, ETF flows, CPI data, and price action together.
That creates a more dynamic market, but also a faster-moving one. Bitcoin can reprice quickly when macro probability shifts. Right now, that shift is working in its favour.
This article is based on Polymarket, BLS inflation data, and Bitcoin ETF flow data.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by Polymarket. at Polymarket
There is a useful difference between a noisy headline and a story that actually changes the market’s understanding of a sector. Blockchain.com Integrates Polymarket Oracle Feeds Supporting Election Speculation lands closer to the second category, provided it is read carefully and without overclaiming.
For more details, visit the official Chainwire platform.
Price action here is useful only when it is tied to a real catalyst, liquidity shift, or visible positioning change rather than a standalone candle. That is the lens I would use here. The update is not valuable because it gives traders a magic answer. It is valuable because it adds another reliable data point to a market that has been moving quickly and, at times, messily.
Highlight how the integration bypasses traditional clearing agents. That detail is important because it gives the story a specific centre of gravity. Without that, it would be too easy to turn this into a generic market move or a recycled headline.
For readers, the useful question is not simply whether Crypto is getting attention. It is whether the underlying development changes access, liquidity, regulatory clarity, infrastructure reliability, or trader positioning. In this case, the answer is that it does give the market something concrete to evaluate.
Because the source is a project announcement distributed through Chainwire, the story should be written with a little restraint: useful details matter, promotional language does not.
The immediate read is also different depending on who is watching. Traders may focus on price and liquidity, while builders or compliance teams may care more about the rule, integration, product, or infrastructure detail. That split is exactly why the story is worth handling as a standalone article rather than burying it in a broader recap.
There is also a timing element. The July 15 update arrives after several sessions where crypto markets have been sensitive to macro headlines, ETF flows, regulatory signals, and exchange-level product changes. Any credible update that touches one of those channels is going to attract attention.
What should be avoided is the temptation to turn one development into a sweeping conclusion. A listing is not the same thing as adoption. A price rebound is not the same thing as a confirmed trend reversal. A new rulemaking step is not the same thing as final legal certainty. The value is in the narrower, more accurate read.
For now, the story gives the market one more piece of evidence about where Crypto sits in the current cycle. It may be about regulatory clarity, a product rollout, a price level, or a piece of infrastructure, but the same rule applies: the strongest conclusion is the one that stays closest to the source.
If follow-up data confirms the direction of travel, this could become part of a larger narrative. If not, it still gives readers a useful snapshot of how quickly crypto’s active themes are rotating across policy, infrastructure, payments, exchanges, and market structure.
That is why this deserves coverage now. It is not about forcing a dramatic market call. It is about giving readers a clear, grounded explanation of what happened, why it matters, and what still needs to be watched.
This report is based on information from the project announcement.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Source: Chainwire
Blockchain.com Partners With Polymarket To Integrate On-Chain Prediction Markets is the kind of story that can look simple at first glance, but it carries more weight once you place it inside the week’s broader crypto backdrop. The point is not to dress the headline up into something bigger than it is. The point is to understand why it is being watched now.
For more details, visit the official Chainwire platform.
The story is worth covering because it gives readers a concrete update on where crypto infrastructure, capital, or policy is moving today. That is the lens I would use here. The update is not valuable because it gives traders a magic answer. It is valuable because it adds another reliable data point to a market that has been moving quickly and, at times, messily.
Detail that user client access will rely on smart contract integration rules. That detail is important because it gives the story a specific centre of gravity. Without that, it would be too easy to turn this into a generic market move or a recycled headline.
For readers, the useful question is not simply whether Crypto is getting attention. It is whether the underlying development changes access, liquidity, regulatory clarity, infrastructure reliability, or trader positioning. In this case, the answer is that it does give the market something concrete to evaluate.
Because the source is a project announcement distributed through Chainwire, the story should be written with a little restraint: useful details matter, promotional language does not.
The immediate read is also different depending on who is watching. Traders may focus on price and liquidity, while builders or compliance teams may care more about the rule, integration, product, or infrastructure detail. That split is exactly why the story is worth handling as a standalone article rather than burying it in a broader recap.
There is also a timing element. The July 15 update arrives after several sessions where crypto markets have been sensitive to macro headlines, ETF flows, regulatory signals, and exchange-level product changes. Any credible update that touches one of those channels is going to attract attention.
What should be avoided is the temptation to turn one development into a sweeping conclusion. A listing is not the same thing as adoption. A price rebound is not the same thing as a confirmed trend reversal. A new rulemaking step is not the same thing as final legal certainty. The value is in the narrower, more accurate read.
For now, the story gives the market one more piece of evidence about where Crypto sits in the current cycle. It may be about regulatory clarity, a product rollout, a price level, or a piece of infrastructure, but the same rule applies: the strongest conclusion is the one that stays closest to the source.
If follow-up data confirms the direction of travel, this could become part of a larger narrative. If not, it still gives readers a useful snapshot of how quickly crypto’s active themes are rotating across policy, infrastructure, payments, exchanges, and market structure.
That is why this deserves coverage now. It is not about forcing a dramatic market call. It is about giving readers a clear, grounded explanation of what happened, why it matters, and what still needs to be watched.
This report is based on information from the project announcement.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Source: Chainwire
Login