On June 25, 2026, a national poll commissioned by the industry alliance Coalition for Prediction Markets quietly provided an answer that seems somewhat unusual in the current political climate: When it comes to the question of "who should regulate prediction markets," voters from both parties rarely aligned on the same side. The data is clear—among Republican respondents, 48% explicitly favor a unified regulatory framework established at the federal level, while only 27% prefer state-by-state management; among Democratic respondents, 45% support federal oversight of prediction markets. Although the briefing did not disclose the specific proportions of the other options, it is clear that support for the federal approach outweighs that for the state-level approach, regardless of party. This relatively unified attitude toward "Washington takeover" sharply contrasts with the tug-of-war in recent years surrounding whether platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket should be managed by the CFTC under event contract and derivatives rules or treated as gambling by the states, reflecting the long-standing controversy over sports betting contracts between federal regulators and state gaming authorities. More importantly, this poll is not an isolated signal: On the congressional front, the House Financial Services Committee has just held a hearing regarding the Federal Reserve's proposal to offer "thin master accounts" to crypto and fintech companies, discussing how new entities can access federal clearing infrastructure in a limited form; offshore, the Curaçao Gaming Authority has released compliance guidelines for crypto assets and extended the transition period to mid-2027, requiring even the already lenient online gaming licenses to fall within a global AML/CFT framework. Amidst this intertwining of actions, this poll, driven by an industry alliance yet reflecting bipartisan consensus, actually provides a rare public opinion support for rewriting the rules of prediction markets at the federal level, and it sets the stage for new power coordinates concerning who will delineate boundaries moving forward.

Bipartisan Voters Rarely Align with Washington: Federal Unified Framework Becomes the Preferred Option

The poll commissioned by the industry alliance Coalition for Prediction Markets presents a result that exceeds mere "industry talking points": In the Republican sample, 48% of respondents choose to have the federal government build a unified regulatory framework, with only 27% supporting state-level regulation; in the Democratic sample, the disclosed data similarly indicates that federal regulation is the relatively most popular option. In other words, during a highly polarized election period, the prediction market, which exists in the gray area between financial derivatives and gambling, has surprisingly become one of the few issues where voters from both parties are willing to "hand power to Washington."

Additionally, since the commissioning body comprises stakeholders from related industries, this poll inherently carries the functions of agenda setting and policy lobbying: it serves as both a thermometer for voter preferences and a "public opinion attachment" to be delivered to congressional offices, CFTC meetings, and state regulatory hearings in the future. For federal legislators, bipartisan support for a unified federal regulation means that when promoting specialized legislation or clarifying CFTC authority, they can be less concerned about being labeled as "overstepping state rights"; for the CFTC, this provides a public opinion bargaining chip to secure a greater voice when delineating regulatory boundaries with states regarding disputed contracts like sports betting; and for state regulators, who have long guarded their respective gaming laws, this poll sends an undeniable signal: If they cannot proactively participate in reconstructing national rules, the rules for prediction markets may increasingly solidify in federal hands over the coming years.

CFTC and State Gaming Regulation Tug-of-War: Prediction Markets Caught in the Middle

In the United States, the essence of prediction market business is entangled in regulatory struggles: Economically, these products resemble "event contracts" that are based on outcomes, which theoretically fall under the potential derivative regulatory authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); however, under states' statutory laws, any contractual bets on outcomes that settle on wins or losses can easily be classified as gambling by state gaming regulators. Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket find themselves caught on this blurry line—one contract may be viewed as a financial product by the CFTC while being considered blatant gambling by certain state regulators. Consequently, sports betting contracts have become the focal point of conflict: State agencies typically view sports betting lines as typical gambling targets, while the industry strives to include them under the CFTC's "event contract" framework; if classified as "gambling," the platform faces the pressure of applying for gambling licenses on a state-by-state basis or even directly withdrawing from certain states.

In the absence of unified federal rules, this tug-of-war has been amplified into real risks based on users' geographic locations: a contract may be allowed in State A but deemed illegal in State B, causing the platform to either cut product lines and user access or turn to offshore jurisdictions like Curaçao, known for their lenient online gambling licenses, to set up entities that leverage regulatory arbitrage for business continuity. The poll indicates that both Republican and Democratic voters support federal regulation of prediction markets at a higher rate than state-level regulation, providing a rare political endorsement for a nationwide framework led by the CFTC or Congress based on "event contracts." Once the federal path solidifies, it could not only redraw the legal boundaries between "financial derivatives" and "gambling," but also reshape the licensing landscape—from the current fragmented multi-state approvals coexisting with offshore licenses to a federal rule anchored system, where state regulation retreats more into supplementary and enforcement roles. However, when this will materialize and how strongly it will compress state rights remain key uncertain variables in the upcoming years of negotiation.

Federal Accounts and Crypto Access: Congress Charting the Path for New Financial Infrastructure

Just as the poll thrusts "federal takeover" into the spotlight, the House Financial Services Committee is also targeting the infrastructure level—at the recent hearing, the topic directly addressed the Federal Reserve's proposal to open a streamlined version of a master account to crypto and fintech companies. For any regulated market infrastructure, a Federal Reserve master account means the ability to "land" directly within the federal clearing network, enjoying qualification for real-time payment, clearing, and liquidity management. Traditionally, this "ticket" has only been issued to licensed institutions such as banks, while the so-called "thin accounts" are a deliberately weakened version where functions are reduced and permissions are strictly limited, designed to provide a defined federal access path for crypto companies and certain fintech firms.

From the perspective of institutional development, the significance of this hearing lies not merely in technical details, but in a political signal: Congress and the Federal Reserve have already implicitly accepted that these new entities "will exist and need access," with current discussions pivoting to "how and with what intensity to access the federal system." For prediction markets, even if they have not yet explicitly been named in the "thin account" proposal, if this path successfully opens up in the crypto and fintech realm, core functions such as order matching, margin holding, and clearing counterparties could potentially be re-integrated into the federal payment network, provided they first obtain clear identity labels at the federal level. In other words, only when prediction markets are officially categorized under a specific type of federal regulatory framework will it be feasible to discuss obtaining master accounts or indirectly accessing the clearing system through licensed institutions; this cycle of institutional design surrounding master accounts and federal access will determine whether prediction markets will be included in the mainstream payment clearing order or continue to linger in the gray areas of licensing and pathways.

Curaçao's New Crypto Gambling Regulations: Offshore Friendly Licenses Begin to Tighten

As the United States discusses how to integrate prediction markets into the federal payment and clearing systems, Curaçao, traditionally seen as one of the offshore "safe havens," has also begun to close its doors. The Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) has issued cryptocurrency policy guidelines for B2C online gambling license holders, explicitly bringing businesses involving crypto assets within the global anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) framework for the first time and providing a compliance transition period—requiring remediation by mid-2027 at the latest. For platforms that have long relied on Curaçao's lenient licenses to offer crypto gambling or prediction products to global users, this means the past "light compliance model of obtaining an offshore license + accessing on-chain tokens" is becoming ineffective, with the license itself now starting to demand explanations for customer identity, funds flow, and transaction monitoring.

Curaçao has long been considered one of the friendliest jurisdictions for online gambling, but it is now actively locking crypto asset businesses within the unified global AML/CFT framework. This echoes the inclination reflected in the U.S. poll showing voters’ desire for unified federal regulation of prediction markets: on one side, U.S. voters rarely cross party lines to support a federal framework for gambling and prediction issues, while on the other, offshore licensing jurisdictions use transition periods and detailed guidelines to categorize crypto gambling and predictive products under the same risk standards. For platforms that host servers overseas, hold licenses in Curaçao, but continue to serve U.S. users, the new regulations objectively raise compliance costs at both ends—making it difficult to "pretend not to understand on-chain funds" with the licensing country and harder to find space within the regulatory gaps between federal and state levels in the U.S.; the window for global compliance arbitrage is visibly narrowing.

Federal Unified Regulatory Window and Platforms' Life-or-Death Choices

The bipartisan poll has propelled the notion of "federal takeover of prediction markets" from an industry slogan to the level of public opinion: 48% of Republican respondents and 45% of Democratic respondents lean toward a federal unified framework, which is exceedingly rare in highly polarized American politics, but this does not automatically translate into codes becoming regulations. The institutional trajectory over the next few years may oscillate among three pathways: one is led by the CFTC to build a federal framework for event contracts and bring platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket into the derivatives regulatory system; the second is Congress, based on current hearings, promoting specialized legislation that leaves compliance interfaces for certain prediction products to access federal financial infrastructure through discussions like "thin accounts"; the third is maintaining a parallel game between federal and state regulations, even increasing the enforcement momentum between federal and state authorities on highly disputed contracts like sports betting, causing the costs of gray operations to rise passively. For platforms, this poll resembles a compliance timer calling for an early choice: One segment may bet on the federal path, align themselves with the U.S. and major international licensing systems, and shape themselves into "dialogue partners" that can be written into the rules; another segment may continue to rely on offshore licenses like Curaçao and regulatory gaps while bearing the structural risk of being forced to exit or block U.S. users in the future, as the CGA extends the AML/CFT transition period to mid-2027 and synchronously increases regulatory intensity. Ultimately, what determines the survival of platforms is not how favorable the current public opinion numbers are for federal regulation, but whether Congressional hearings and legislative texts in the coming years steer toward a unified framework, the CFTC tightens its stance on fringe contracts like sports betting, and the traditional lenient jurisdictions like Curaçao tolerate the bounds of the "crypto + gambling + prediction" combination before and after 2027.

Join our community, let's discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive benefits for AiCoin on Hyperliquid: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive benefits for AiCoin on Aster: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin's on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。