WASHINGTON – Recently, the United States was gearing up for a bold mission to rescue an airman whose fighter jet had been shot down by Iran. However, an unusual aspect of this situation emerged: people were betting on when the airman would be rescued through a platform called Polymarket, which is the largest prediction market in the world.
Members of the public could place bets on different dates for the rescue, and when Rep. Seth Moulton, a Democrat from Massachusetts, shared a screenshot of the betting activity, it showed that a lot of people were predicting the rescue would happen on April 4 rather than April 3.
Once Moulton criticized this “dystopian death market” on social media, Polymarket decided to halt the betting, stating that such activities did not meet their integrity standards. Moulton, who is a former Marine with experience from four tours in Iraq, expressed dissatisfaction with Polymarket’s response, arguing that betting on the lives of service members is a form of war profiteering, and called for Congress to intervene.
This incident has sparked a significant discussion in Congress about the ethical implications of prediction markets, which allow users to wager on outcomes ranging from sports events to significant political events. In a highly polarized political climate, there seems to be a rare consensus among lawmakers about the need to prevent the misuse of these markets for insider trading.
Former CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) commissioner Kristin Johnson emphasized that this is a national conversation about market integrity. Unlike past issues that took time to address, the response to prediction markets has been swift.
Critics have pointed out that markets like Polymarket and its competitor Kalshi could potentially undermine the integrity of various sectors, including sports, and contribute to gambling addiction among young people. Polymarket, in particular, has faced scrutiny for being an offshore platform, which makes regulatory oversight challenging.
Recently, there was controversy over a group of new Polymarket users who made well-timed bets about a potential ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, resulting in significant profits. This led to warnings from the White House to its staff against using private information for trading.
Senator Todd Young and Senator Elissa Slotkin have introduced legislation to prevent federal employees from using nonpublic information to make bets on prediction markets. Furthermore, potential presidential candidates are also entering the discussion, with proposals for stricter regulations on these betting platforms.
For instance, Rahm Emanuel has suggested a ban on bets made by federal employees and their families as well as a 10% fee on prediction markets to fund scientific research. California Governor Gavin Newsom has also taken action by issuing an order against using nonpublic information for trading.
Currently, there is no clear path for these regulations to be implemented, but the debate has highlighted the differences between Polymarket and Kalshi. Polymarket operates largely offshore, while Kalshi promotes itself as a regulated market that welcomes oversight.
The CFTC, which oversees trading markets, is under scrutiny for its capacity to regulate prediction markets effectively. There are concerns about its current staffing and resources, as highlighted in a recent hearing where the CFTC acknowledged the need for more personnel to handle these issues.
As the conversation continues in Washington, it’s clear that lawmakers agree something needs to be done about prediction markets, especially as they become more popular and involve real money.
___
Sweet reported from New York. Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this report.
