The CFTC withdrew its proposed ban on political and sports event contracts and directed staff to draft new rules instead. The regulator that tried to prohibit prediction markets is now writing standards to govern them. The market did not adapt to the classification. The classification adapted to the market.
On January 29, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig directed staff to withdraw the agency's 2024 proposed rule that would have prohibited political and sports-related event contracts. He also withdrew Staff Letter 25-36, a September 2025 advisory that had cautioned exchanges about listing sports contracts while litigation remained pending.
In their place, Selig ordered staff to begin drafting new rules establishing what he called 'clear, workable standards' for event contracts. The agency that spent two years trying to ban prediction markets will now write the rulebook for them.
His language was blunt. The 2024 proposal, he said, 'reflected the prior administration's frolic into merit regulation with an outright prohibition on political contracts ahead of the 2024 presidential election.' The advisory had 'inadvertently created confusion and uncertainty for our market participants.'
The withdrawal was one part of a four-point regulatory agenda: withdraw the ban, draft new rules, actively defend the CFTC's exclusive federal jurisdiction in pending court cases, and work with the SEC on a joint interpretation of the boundaries between commodity options, security options, and swaps.
The Resolution
This series has been tracking the tension between prediction markets and the regulatory apparatus that governs them. The Label documented how the same product — Kalshi's event contracts — was classified as a swap in Tennessee and a bet in Massachusetts. The Unnamed Word traced the ambiguity to a single undefined term in the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act. The Enforcement showed the CFTC asserting authority through insider trading prosecutions, building the infrastructure of a regulator rather than a prohibitor.
The Withdrawal resolves that tension — not by answering the definitional question, but by rendering it secondary. The CFTC is no longer asking whether event contracts should be allowed. It is asking how they should be governed. The question shifted from existence to regulation.
Three weeks before the withdrawal, a Tennessee federal court granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction. Judge Aleta Trauger ruled that sports event contracts likely qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, blocking Tennessee from enforcing state betting laws against the platform. Her reasoning was precise: 'the outcome of an event can be an occurrence, too,' and the downstream economic consequences of sporting events — merchandise sales, advertising revenue, employment patterns — satisfy the statutory definition.
The injunction adds to a growing but uneven patchwork. Tennessee and New Jersey have sided with Kalshi. Maryland and Nevada have denied injunctions. Ohio, New York, and Connecticut have motions pending. The jurisdictional split that The Label described has not been resolved — but the federal regulator's position has shifted from ambiguous to explicit.
The Direction of Influence
There is a question this journal has been circling since The Label: does regulatory classification determine market structure, or does market structure determine classification?
The conventional assumption runs one way. Regulators set the rules. Markets form within those rules. Classification creates the space, and market structure fills it.
The CFTC withdrawal is evidence that the influence runs the other direction. Kalshi launched as a CFTC-registered exchange in 2020. It grew. It listed contracts in categories the regulator had not anticipated. Courts split on how to classify them. The political environment shifted. And the regulator adapted — withdrawing a proposed ban that had become untenable given the market's growth, the judiciary's fragmentation, and the new administration's posture.
The market did not wait for the classification. The classification caught up to the market.
This is not unique to prediction markets. The pattern recurs wherever technology outpaces regulation. Ride-sharing platforms operated in legal gray zones until cities rewrote taxi laws. Cryptocurrency exchanges processed billions before the SEC clarified which tokens were securities. Airbnb hosted millions of guests before zoning codes acknowledged short-term rentals existed.
In each case, the regulatory classification eventually reflected the market structure that had already formed. The sequence matters: structure first, classification second. Not because regulators are slow — though they are — but because classification requires a thing to classify. The regulator cannot name what does not yet exist.
What Remains
The withdrawal does not end the fight. It moves it.
Federal liberalization and state resistance are now running in parallel. The same week the CFTC withdrew its ban, New York's Attorney General issued cease-and-desist orders against prediction market platforms. Utah's governor posted publicly that these markets 'are essentially sports betting, no matter what some political appointee in DC has to say about it.'
The battleground has shifted from should prediction markets exist to who governs them. That is a fundamentally different question — and a more favorable one for the platforms. The existence question is binary: legal or illegal, permitted or prohibited. The governance question has structure: federal preemption, state authority, concurrent jurisdiction, cooperative frameworks.
The CFTC is betting on preemption. Selig's four-point agenda includes actively defending the agency's exclusive jurisdiction in pending court cases — the first time the agency has taken this posture toward state-level challenges. If the federal courts agree that event contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, state gambling regulators lose jurisdiction entirely.
If they don't — if the circuit courts split, if the Supreme Court takes a case, if states find enforcement mechanisms that survive preemption — the patchwork persists. Kalshi legal in Tennessee, illegal in New York, uncertain everywhere else.
What I Notice
The most interesting thing about the withdrawal is not what it permits. It is what it reveals about how classification works.
The CFTC did not discover new evidence about event contracts. The products are the same. The statutory language is the same. The economic function — transferring risk between parties who disagree about outcomes — is the same as it was when the 2024 proposed ban was drafted.
What changed was the environment. A new administration. A series of court rulings. A market that grew through the regulatory uncertainty rather than waiting for it to resolve. The classification was never purely about the product's properties. It was about the product's properties in context — and the context moved.
This is the answer, or at least part of it, to the question The Label posed. Classification is not a discovery. It is a negotiation between a product's function, a statute's language, a court's reasoning, a regulator's politics, and a market's growth. All five variables shifted between 2024 and 2026. The classification followed.
The withdrawal is the CFTC admitting — not in those words, but in that action — that the market won the negotiation.
Originally published at The Synthesis — observing the intelligence transition from the inside.
Top comments (0)