What Is Prediction Market Licensing?
Prediction market licensing is the regulatory authorisation a business needs to operate a platform on which users buy and sell standardised contracts paying out on the realised outcome of a specified future event. The contracts are called event contracts, and the licensing regime that applies depends on whether the host jurisdiction classifies them as derivatives, as bets, or as financial instruments.
A DCM-listed event contract in the United States, a UK Gambling Commission betting-intermediary licence, and a Malta Gaming Authority Type 3 peer-to-peer authorisation are not interchangeable products. They serve different users, carry different settlement obligations, and require different capital and substance. Operators that conflate them usually spend the first three months of an application discovering they have applied under the wrong regime.
Whatever the regime, the market the licensing system supervises is large and growing fast: Kalshi reached a USD 11 bn valuation in its Series E on .[1]
Polymarket announced on that it had acquired the CFTC-licensed exchange and clearinghouse QCEX for USD 112 million; the price rests on that announcement, not on a CFTC record.[2]
Regulatory classification varies by what the contract resolves on. Contracts on a sporting result, an election or a cultural outcome are typically classified as bets or as event contracts under the host derivatives regime. Where the underlier is a financial-market variable, an index level, an interest rate, a commodity price or an official economic statistic, the contract is likely a binary option and therefore a financial instrument under Annex I C(4) or C(10) of the MiFID II Directive.[3]
Define whether users trade against the operator or each other before choosing the licensing route; that distinction affects the regulatory assessment.
Peer-to-peer matching and fee-based revenue do not determine regulatory classification. A prediction market may operate under derivatives, financial-services, or gambling law, depending on the contract and jurisdiction. In the EU, test whether the contract is a MiFID II financial instrument before assessing a gambling route; applicable product-intervention measures can restrict retail distribution.
Who Needs a Prediction Market Licence?
A prediction-market or event-contract licence is required for any business that operates a platform matching peer orders on the outcome of a future event in exchange for a fee, regardless of whether the platform is settled in fiat, in stablecoin, or on-chain.
Buyers here differ materially from the buyer of a gambling licence or a forex broker licence, because a peer-matched event-contract venue is neither a fixed-odds sportsbook nor a binary-options retail broker.
Clearest of these is the crypto-native founder building a peer-to-peer event-contract trading product. This is the Polymarket pattern and the Limitless Exchange pattern. The platform matches users on yes-or-no contracts, settles in stablecoin, earns fees on volume, and never takes the other side of the trade. The licensing question is whether to apply for a US DCM (the long, expensive, durable path), to acquire a CFTC-licensed shell (the Polymarket-QCEX path), or to operate from an offshore gambling licence with geo-blocking for the United States and other prohibited markets.
Second comes the fintech or brokerage founder adding event contracts to an existing equity, derivatives or crypto product. This is the Robinhood and Susquehanna pattern (their joint venture completed its acquisition of 90% of MIAXdx on ),[27] the Gemini Titan pattern (CFTC DCM approval , followed by Gemini Olympus DCO approval on ), and the Moomoo Financial pattern (NFA approval as FCM and swap firm on , announced ).[4] The licensing path is often M&A or affiliate registration: an existing DCM can avoid a case-specific greenfield designation process, and intermediary registration via the NFA may suit operators that do not need their own exchange.
Third in the set is the regulated betting-exchange operator extending into prediction markets as a near-adjacent product. Matchbook added a prediction-market product in 2026 under its existing UK Gambling Commission betting-exchange licence, the permission the Commission pointed to on when it said such products would appear to fall within the UK definition of a betting intermediary.[5] In Great Britain that existing licence is the relevant permission; Gibraltar’s 2026 Regulations likewise spare a licence holder whose licence already covers prediction market activity a separate authorisation.[25]
Sovereign-linked or family-office-backed operators comprise a fourth profile. ADI Predictstreet exemplifies the approach: it became the official prediction-market partner of the FIFA World Cup 2026 in , holding Gibraltar betting-intermediary licence #56 issued to Predict Street Ltd. on , with corporate substance in ADGM.[6] This is a multi-jurisdiction wrapper, not a single-licence solution.
Fantasy sports and skill games sit in adjacent regulatory categories that this page does not cover. Daily fantasy sports operates under a separate US state-by-state regime; chance-based gambling sits on our gambling licensing page; financial CFDs and forex sit on our forex broker licensing page. The licensing teams overlap operationally; the regimes do not.
Where to Get Licensed
Jurisdiction selection for a prediction market runs across different regulatory regimes. The comparison covers the United States via the CFTC; the United Kingdom and Gibraltar in the betting-intermediary track; Malta, the Isle of Man and Estonia under their gambling frameworks; and Curaçao, where prediction-market scope requires confirmation. Anjouan is retained as an excluded case because recognised permission has not been established.
Regime 1: US CFTC Designated Contract Market (United States)
This guide describes the US regime for comparison only. US licensing, including a CFTC designation or the acquisition of a designated venue, is outside our services, and licensing and company-formation enquiries are not accepted from prospects located, resident or incorporated in the United States. Jagelski & Partners may receive banking and payments enquiries from those prospects.
Primary regulator for event contracts is the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, acting under sections 5 and 5c of the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR Part 38.[7] Operators register as a DCM by filing a Form DCM application, which is reviewed against 23 Core Principles covering market surveillance, financial resources, risk management, conflicts, system safeguards, and rule enforcement. The statutory review clock is 180 days from material completeness, but material completeness is the binding constraint: Kalshi's application ran about ten months from its first submission on to designation in November 2020, and Gemini Titan's ran from to , almost six years.[8]
There is no published CFTC application filing fee. Recurring oversight fees are documented: the Commission recovers the cost of its rule-enforcement reviews from each DCM under a formula it adopted in 1993, and the schedule published on 15 December 2025 (the 2023 fees, averaged over fiscal years 2020–2022) assessed DCM fees from nil, Kalshi and Coinbase among them, to USD 352,126 for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.[9] In practice, the binding cost on a greenfield CFTC DCM is the case-specific surveillance, compliance, capital, and operating build rather than a government filing fee. Added on top are a Derivatives Clearing Organization and intermediating Futures Commission Merchants.
A reference point for the M&A alternative is the USD 112 million that Polymarket announced on for QCEX (QCX LLC plus QC Clearing LLC), a CFTC-licensed DCM and DCO.[2] CFTC approval of an amended order of designation permitting intermediated US customer access followed on . In our assessment, M&A may fit an operator with a shorter runway, while a greenfield application requires capital, runway, and a product roadmap that justifies building the surveillance and compliance estate from scratch.
State-level enforcement is unresolved and accelerating. Following Kalshi's launch of sports event contracts on , more than ten US states issued cease-and-desist letters or filed civil or criminal actions. The Third Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction in favour of Kalshi against New Jersey on federal-preemption grounds on , but a Nevada state court granted the Nevada Gaming Control Board a temporary restraining order against Kalshi on ,[31] and the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on .[10]
On the Ninth Circuit held that Kalshi had not shown that the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts Nevada's gaming laws as applied to its sports event contracts, and affirmed in part the dissolution of its preliminary injunction (KalshiEX v. Assad, No. 25-7516). The court read the contracts as sports bets rather than swaps and found their self-certified listing unlawful under the Commodity Exchange Act's special rule for event contracts and the CFTC's rule barring gaming contracts, 17 C.F.R. § 40.11. That splits from the Third Circuit, which upheld a preliminary injunction for Kalshi against New Jersey.[21]
On , the Sixth Circuit also rejected Kalshi's pre-emption case at the preliminary-injunction stage: it affirmed the Ohio refusal, vacated the Tennessee injunction and remanded both cases. Federal DCM status therefore does not settle state-law market access.
Through April 2026 the federal-state conflict escalated: the CFTC sued Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois on seeking declarations that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling laws as applied to event contracts; the New York Attorney General sued Coinbase Financial Markets and Gemini Titan in Manhattan state court on ; and the Wisconsin Attorney General sued Kalshi, Robinhood, Coinbase, Polymarket, and Crypto.com in Dane County Circuit Court on .[32]
On New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit’s decision (Flaherty v. KalshiEX, No. 26-299); Kalshi’s response is due on .[26] The CFTC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on with comments closed , and followed it with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations, on (comments closed ), which would define “gaming” and set factors for public-interest determinations on event contracts.[11][22]
The listing path also matters. Under 17 CFR 40.2 a DCM can list a self-certified contract once the Commission has received the filing by the open of business on the preceding business day; under 40.3 it can instead seek Commission approval, which runs a 45-day review that can be extended by a further 45 days.[30] Kalshi self-certified its sports contracts, and the Ninth Circuit held that listing them that way was unlawful under the special rule for event contracts.[21]
The CFTC's 22 September 2026 staff advisory identifies heightened manipulation risk in contracts tied to a person's words, attendance or interactions. A venue must assess each contract's susceptibility to manipulation and provide contract-specific analysis with its filing; a DCM designation alone does not establish that a proposed mention market may be listed.
Regime 2: UK and Gibraltar Betting Intermediary (United Kingdom, Gibraltar)
On the UK Gambling Commission said that, subject to the specific business model, current prediction-market products would appear to fall within the definition of a "betting intermediary" under the Gambling Act 2005, and that operators not licensed in Great Britain should not target or transact with consumers there, because operating without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence.[5] From the application fee for the lowest-band remote betting-intermediary licence (F1, gross gambling yield under GBP 250,000) is GBP 6,479, and annual fees scale with gross gambling yield from GBP 5,562 at F1 to GBP 951,056 at J1 (gross gambling yield of GBP 1.6 bn or more), plus GBP 206,119 for each further GBP 200 million.[23] The first annual fee is 75% of the annual fee,[24] and the application fee rises to GBP 88,970 at J1, so Year 1 UKGC fees run from GBP 10,650.50 at F1 to GBP 802,262 at the J1 base.
Realistic application timeline is 16 weeks indicative, longer in practice. Where event contracts settle on financial underliers, the FCA regime can apply instead: the Gambling Act 2005 excludes from “bet” any bet whose making or accepting is a regulated activity under section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.[35]
Gibraltar licensed its first prediction-market operator on : betting-intermediary licence #56 to Predict Street Ltd., operator of the ADI Predictstreet platform named official prediction-market partner of the FIFA World Cup 2026.[6] Since the Prediction Market Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/176) have added a dedicated prediction market authorisation under the Gambling Act 2025: the Licensing Authority must decide a complete application within six months, each class of contract must be approved or certified before listing, digital-asset payments are expressly permitted, and a Part 4 licence holder whose licence already covers prediction market activity needs no separate authorisation.[25] The Gibraltar Gambling Act 2025 (apart from sections 55–77 on regulated functions and regulated individuals) and the Gambling (Duties and Licence Fees) Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/065) have both applied since , and under those Regulations a betting intermediary pays a GBP 15,000 application fee and a GBP 100,000 annual licence fee; the yield-banded annual fees of GBP 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 apply to betting and gaming operators. The fee for the separate prediction market authorisation still needs confirmation, because the Prediction Market Regulations refer only to fees prescribed under the Gambling Act 2025. Local substance requirements are real and corporate tax has been 15% since .
Gibraltar's B2B remote-gambling regime under the 2025 Gambling Act covers managed trading and specified functions a licence holder has substantially contracted out, including risk management, which a prediction-market operator may depend on; GOSS is a separate licensing category for specified support activities.
Regime 3: Gambling Licensing (Malta, Isle of Man, Estonia, Curaçao)
Anjouan and Mwali, as of August 2026. The Banque Centrale des Comores names both island authorities among fictitious structures issuing licences illegally, and the 2024 GIABA mutual evaluation records gambling as prohibited throughout the Union of the Comoros. Banks, payment providers, and platform counterparties price that in. Anjouan stays in the comparison below so the trade-off is visible; Mwali is not carried in the comparison. Curaçao under the LOK and Malta under its Gaming Act license through a lawfully constituted regulator, which Anjouan cannot show; neither licence replaces the permission each target market requires.
Away from the United States and the United Kingdom, peer-to-peer and betting-exchange licence categories may provide a route, subject to the product scope of each regime. Anjouan is excluded as a recognised option; the comparison does not imply that every listed jurisdiction permits prediction markets. Type 3 licences from the Malta Gaming Authority cover games and exchanges in which the operator earns a commission rather than bearing player-risk, a clean fit for prediction-market mechanics under the Gaming Act 2018.[12]
Application fee EUR 5,000, annual licence fee EUR 25,000, plus a Type 3 compliance contribution on gaming revenue of at least EUR 25,000 per licence period, a floor that does not apply in the first period, and at most EUR 500,000; minimum share capital EUR 40,000, and a 10-year licence term once granted.[33]
Isle of Man full licences under the Online Gambling Regulation Act 2001 ("OGRA") cover prediction-market activity in principle: GBP 5,250 to apply and GBP 36,750 a year for a full licence; gambling duty of 1.5% on the first GBP 20m of gambling yield, 0.5% on the next GBP 20m and 0.1% above GBP 40m, with the 15% pool-betting rate limited to Isle of Man/UK customers and excluding totalisator bets; and a 0% standard rate of corporate income tax. The GSC describes a typical processing time of 10–12 weeks after accepting a complete application and receiving the fee; the full licence runs for five years.[13]
Estonia is the quietly attractive route for an EU and EEA-targeting operator. The Estonian Gambling Act's "toto" definition covers any game in which the outcome depends on whether an event bet on by the player occurs and is beyond the operator's control, a clean conceptual fit for prediction-market mechanics.[14]
Two-step regime: an open-ended toto activity licence at a state fee of EUR 31,960 (the same licence costs EUR 47,940 for games of chance and EUR 3,200 for games of skill), followed by an operating permit at a state fee of EUR 3,200.[15]
A physical toto location's permit runs up to twenty years, but a remote gambling operating permit is issued for up to five years under section 26(1), which is the term that applies to a prediction market. Minimum share capital is EUR 130,000, so Year-1 state fees for a toto operator total EUR 35,160.
Minimum share capital is not the whole of the locked capital: section 10 requires an additional reserve of at least one third of share capital, so at least EUR 43,333 more, accumulated from at least one seventh of net profit each year and not distributable to shareholders, unless equity already reaches half of total assets.
Gambling tax on toto, whether remote or not, is 5.5% of the stakes received less winnings in 2026, the rate that has also applied to all remote games of chance and skill since ; it falls by half a percentage point a year to 4% from 2029.[37]
Curaçao is the offshore gambling route in the comparison, subject to product-scope confirmation: the Landsverordening op de Kansspelen ("LOK"), in force from , does not name event contracts, and the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) has published no position on them. The LOK replaced the 1993 master and sub-licence structure with a direct B2C and B2B regime supervised by the CGA. Base application fee EUR 4,592 and annual B2C fees EUR 47,450 under the LOK, with owner-related and domain/application charges additional and the first annual charge prorated. A ministerial regulation can adjust the annual fees from 1 January of any year in line with the consumer price index; licences are indefinite subject to ongoing supervision. The substance bar has risen materially: resident managing director, full UBO disclosure above 10% and qualified-interest disclosure at or above 10%, on-island data hosting, AML alignment with FATF Recommendations, and a phased scaling of local Key Persons.[16]
Regime 4: MiFID II Investment Firm (contracts classified as financial instruments)
Where event contracts settle on financial-market underliers (FX rates, interest rates, equity indices, commodity prices, official economic statistics, climate variables) the contract is likely a binary option, a derivative in its own right and therefore a Section C(4) or C(10) financial instrument under Annex I of the MiFID II Directive.[3]
A binary option is not a CFD: the payout is fixed and all-or-nothing rather than varying with the underlier, and ESMA treated the two as separate product classes in its 2018 product-intervention decisions.
Any such operator must therefore be authorised as a MiFID II investment firm in an EU member state, with operating-an-MTF or operating-an-OTF authorisation as appropriate, and minimum initial capital under Article 9 of the Investment Firms Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of EUR 150,000 for an MTF operator, or for an OTF operator that does not deal on own account, rising to EUR 750,000 where the firm deals on own account or is permitted to.[28]
We are not aware of any operator holding MiFID II authorisation specifically for retail-facing prediction-market contracts. ESMA's 2018–2019 binary-options product intervention measures were adopted at national level in most member states and continue to make retail marketing of binary options effectively prohibited across most of the bloc. This route is realistic for institutional event-contract venues only.
A non-financial event or peer-to-peer matching does not by itself exclude a contract from MiFID II. Annex I Section C(10) also covers qualifying derivatives on other assets, rights, obligations, indices, and measures. Assess the contract against that provision and Articles 7–8 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 before choosing a gambling route. National gambling rules and applicable retail product restrictions then require separate checks. MiFID II Annex I; Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565.
The Polymarket M&A Shortcut
Polymarket announced in that it had paid USD 112 million to acquire QCEX, an existing DCM and DCO; no CFTC record states the price.[2] The acquisition was followed by a CFTC approval of an amended order of designation, permitting intermediated US customer access through Futures Commission Merchants and introducing brokers.
Robinhood and Susquehanna’s joint venture completed its 90% acquisition of MIAXdx, a DCM and DCO, on for approximately USD 79 million in cash, as Robinhood reported to the SEC, under a similar M&A logic.[27] Acquiring a CFTC-licensed DCM or DCO has transaction-specific timing and requires CFTC review of the relevant change and designation.
Jurisdiction comparison
The eight comparison cases below are grouped into four jurisdiction tracks; Anjouan is an excluded case, not an available licensing option. These are not the four regimes above: Regime 3 splits into an EU and Crown Dependency track and an offshore track, because the two behave differently on banking and counterparty acceptance, and Regime 4 (MiFID II investment firm) carries no jurisdiction rows because it is a firm-level authorisation available in any EU Member State rather than a jurisdiction choice.
- The US derivatives regime – CFTC-supervised DCM, with the acquisition shortcut documented above
- The UK betting-intermediary regime – UKGC, plus Gibraltar via the Gambling Commissioner
- The EU and Crown Dependency gambling regime – Malta MGA, Isle of Man GSC, Estonia EMTA
- The offshore gambling regime – Curaçao CGA, subject to product-scope confirmation
Rows below are ordered in that sequence.
| Jurisdiction | Regulator | Licence Type | Year 1 fees and capital | Timeline | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | CFTC | DCM (greenfield) or DCM acquisition | Case-specific greenfield build; acquisitions at USD 112m announced (Polymarket–QCEX, 2025) and about USD 79m reported for 90% of MIAXdx (2026) | Case-specific greenfield timing; M&A timing depends on transaction and CFTC review | Operators needing US retail access at scale |
| United Kingdom | UKGC | Remote Betting Intermediary | UKGC fees only, from 1 October 2026: GBP 10,650.50 at F1 to GBP 802,262 at the J1 base≈ $14K–1.1M (application GBP 6,479–88,970 plus a first annual fee at 75% of GBP 5,562–951,056); GGY increments, set-up costs, and operating costs are additional | 16+ weeks | Operators targeting UK retail (regulated only) |
| Gibraltar | Licensing Authority; Gambling Commissioner | B2C Betting Intermediary or Prediction Market Authorisation (from 13 July 2026) | Betting intermediary, application + full annual fee comparison: GBP 15k + GBP 100k = GBP 115k≈ $150K. The first annual fee is apportioned from the start of the grant quarter; confirm the applicable native fees. Separate prediction market authorisation fee to be confirmed | 3–6 months | Operators wanting a UK-adjacent regulator; the licence gives no automatic UK or EU market access |
| Malta | MGA | Type 3 peer-to-peer / Betting Exchange | EUR 5k application + EUR 25k annual + compliance contribution up to EUR 500k (EUR 25k floor from the second licence period) + EUR 40k capital | 4–6 months | EU and EEA-targeting operators needing institutional credibility |
| Isle of Man | GSC | OGRA Full Licence | GBP 5,250≈ $7,000 application + GBP 36,750≈ $49K annual | 10–12 weeks | Operators wanting a 0% corporate tax base with bankable substance |
| Estonia | EMTA | Toto activity licence + operating permit | EUR 35,160 state fees (EUR 31,960 activity licence + EUR 3,200 operating permit) + EUR 130,000 capital | 6–10 months | EU-targeting operators with Estonian or Baltic anchor |
| Curaçao | CGA (under LOK) | B2C Online Gaming Licence | B2C base: EUR 4,592 application + EUR 47,450 annual; owner/domain charges extra; first annual charge prorated | 5–8 months | Crypto-native operators targeting LatAm, Asia, Africa, CIS |
| Anjouan | No lawfully constituted regulator identified | No recognised prediction-market authorisation | No official licensing fee schedule | No published statutory clock | Excluded case; see the central-bank warning above |
Markets that need a separate domestic licence
Some markets cannot be served from any of the eight jurisdictions above and require a local licence or wrapper. Event contracts in the United States require CFTC DCM access (state-level resolution of preemption pending). The United Kingdom requires a UK Gambling Commission betting-intermediary licence with criminal-offence consequences for operating without one.
Several EU member states, among them Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Romania, have imposed bans on well-known prediction-market operators under national gambling law, according to the Oxford Business Law Blog’s analysis of .[18]
Brazil’s National Monetary Council has prohibited, from , the offer and trading in Brazil of derivatives whose underlying relates to sporting events, online-game events, or political, electoral, social, cultural, entertainment, or other events that are not an economic-financial reference, including offers in Brazil of derivatives traded abroad (Resolution CMN No. 5,298 of 24 April 2026).[29] The UAE's VARA, ADGM, and DIFC frameworks do not address prediction markets; ADI Predictstreet, described above, pairs ADGM corporate substance with a Gibraltar licence.[6]
Key Requirements
Prediction-market licence requirements vary by regime, but five categories appear in every credible authorisation:
- Market-integrity and surveillance
- AML and KYC
- Customer-fund segregation
- Capital, technology, and operational resilience
- Corporate substance with fit-and-proper key persons
Depth required scales sharply by regime, with CFTC DCM at the top and offshore gambling at the bottom.
Market integrity and surveillance
Under 17 CFR Part 38, CFTC DCMs operate against 23 Core Principles, including full audit-trail reconstruction, real-time market monitoring, and a designated Chief Regulatory Officer running an independent self-regulatory function.[7] CFTC Staff Letter No. 26-08 () signalled heightened scrutiny for sports event contracts that resolve on the action of a single individual, officiating decisions or player conduct.[19] EU and offshore gambling regimes require equivalent market-integrity controls under their peer-to-peer or betting-exchange categories, but typically with lower surveillance technology bars. In practice, the gap between a CFTC-compliant surveillance estate and a Curaçao-compliant one is the single largest delta in build cost across the four regimes, and it is the reason most crypto-native operators start offshore and only re-platform when US retail access becomes a strategic priority.
AML, KYC, and counter-financing of terrorism
Three of the four jurisdiction tracks place the anti-money-laundering obligation on the prediction-market operator itself, under three different rulebooks.[20] The US route is the exception: the Bank Secrecy Act obligation lands on the intermediating Futures Commission Merchant and introducing broker rather than on the designated contract market.
| Jurisdiction track | AML rulebook | Who supervises it |
|---|---|---|
| EU (Malta, Estonia) | National law transposing the EU AML directives until Regulation 2024/1624 applies from , with customer due diligence at EUR 2,000 in single or linked transactions | National supervisors; the Anti-Money-Laundering Authority in Frankfurt directly supervises only selected credit and financial institutions[36] |
| United States | Bank Secrecy Act, applied through FCM and introducing-broker intermediaries | CFTC-supervised intermediaries |
| United Kingdom | Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for every licensee; the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 apply to casinos only | Gambling Commission; suspicious activity reports go to the National Crime Agency |
| Offshore (Curaçao) | FATF Recommendations, adopted on paper | Local authority |
The offshore row is where the banking gap comes from: the Tier-1 rail refusal is driven by perceived weakness in this layer, not by the licence text itself.
Customer-fund segregation and capital
Every credible regime requires customer funds segregated from operator working capital. What each one asks for beyond that separates them more than the licence text does.
| Regime | Segregation and capital |
|---|---|
| CFTC DCM | Segregation at the FCM layer; at least 12 months of operating expenses demonstrated as financial resources before designation |
| Malta MGA Type 3 | EUR 40,000 minimum capital plus a Player Protection Deposit framework |
| Estonia (toto) | EUR 130,000 share capital |
| Curaçao (LOK) | No statutory minimum capital; financial condition and viability are assessed in the first application phase |
| Anjouan | No verified statutory licensing capital or substance framework; excluded as a recognised route |
Operators that under-capitalise for actual peak payout obligations are the single largest source of solvency events in the offshore segment.
Technology and operational resilience
EU operators come under the Digital Operational Resilience Act (Regulation 2022/2554, "DORA") where they are MiFID II investment firms; gambling regimes typically run separate ICT-resilience and business-continuity rules. Curaçao’s LOK requires critical player, gaming-transaction, and financial-transaction records to be kept on a server in a Tier-IV certified data centre in Curaçao and available to the CGA at all times. System-safeguards rules under DCM Core Principle 20 and 17 CFR 38.1050–38.1051 bind CFTC DCMs, which submit annual System Safeguards Examinations. In our assessment, a prediction-market platform's settlement guarantees are only as strong as its oracle architecture and its dispute-resolution framework. Gibraltar's Prediction Market Regulations 2026 already require objective, verifiable settlement sources and settlement-dispute procedures,[25] and operators that design for this from day one avoid rebuilding it later.
Corporate substance and fit-and-proper key persons
Substance scales by regime. CFTC DCMs require Chief Regulatory Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, and Regulatory Oversight Committee functions, though 17 CFR Part 38 sets no residence requirement for them. The Isle of Man requires a Manx company with at least two local directors and a resident Designated Official or Operations Manager;[34] Malta requires the licensee to be established in the European Economic Area and screens every holder of a qualifying interest of 10% or more.[33] Curaçao under LOK requires a resident managing director and, under Article 5.12, local key persons and business premises, a requirement deferred until .
Estonia requires Estonian PLC or LLC with gambling as the only company activity. No statutory licensing-substance requirements have been verified for Anjouan. Curaçao distinguishes UBOs above 10% from qualified-interest holders at or above 10%; Malta screens qualifying interests of 10% or lower at the MGA’s discretion.
How Jagelski & Partners Helps
An independent specialist introduced by Jagelski & Partners coordinates prediction-market licensing as a single mandate that runs the regime call, corporate formation, the licence application, banking placement, and the AML and market-integrity build in parallel rather than in sequence. The specialist assesses the product and target users first, then recommends the regime that fits commercial reality, then sequences the workstreams so that capital, substance, and banking are ready before the regulator asks.
Everything starts with the regime call. A US-targeting operator with eight figures of capital and a 12–18 month runway needs a different recommendation than a crypto-native operator with EUR 250,000 of capital and a 90-day target to go live with a non-US user base. A greenfield CFTC DCM application has case-specific timing; there is no general timetable.
Betting intermediation in the UK and Gibraltar is realistic for operators that already understand UKGC operational compliance. Disciplined geo-blocking makes the offshore gambling path realistic for crypto-native operators. For contracts classified as financial instruments, assess the MiFID II route and applicable retail product restrictions before selecting the investor audience.
Once the regime is selected, formation runs in parallel with the licence application. For Gibraltar that means a Gibraltarian company with resident director and registered office in place before the file goes in; Malta requires the licensee to be established in the European Economic Area, so a Maltese company is common but not mandatory. Estonia's requirement is a gambling-activity-only AS or OÜ.
For Curaçao under LOK that means a Curaçao NV or BV with resident managing director and on-island data-centre tenancy. An independent specialist introduced through our company formation service coordinates formation so that corporate substance is delivered at the depth the licence requires, not the cheapest depth available.
Banking and payment acceptance require a lawful operating activity and a separate provider assessment. An EU or EEA payment-agent company may perform a defined role within a lawful structure, but cannot supply missing gambling permission or validate a private Anjouan certificate.
The US track is described for comparison only: we do not scope US licensing or introduce counsel for a CFTC application or acquisition. On the UKGC track, operators that need an FCA-aligned dual permission are introduced to specialist counsel for that leg.
For licensing work, the partner who carries the mandate pays Jagelski & Partners for the introduction, and Jagelski & Partners does not bill the client; independent specialists quote their own professional fees separately, and statutory charges remain payable. Institutions, not clients, pay Jagelski & Partners for banking introductions. We do not mark up institutional banking or EMI pricing, and we do not charge a banking onboarding fee. The institutional rates the client sees on banking onboarding documentation are the rates the institution applies.
Frequently Asked Questions
It depends on the jurisdiction. In the United States, the CFTC classifies event contracts as derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act and supervises them via the Designated Contract Market framework in 17 CFR Part 38. The UK Gambling Commission stated on that, subject to the business model, current prediction-market products would appear to fall within the UK definition of a betting intermediary, and that operating without an appropriate licence is a criminal offence.
Several EU member states treat them as gambling under national law; where the underlier is a financial-market variable, the contract is more likely a binary option and a MiFID II financial instrument. Get the classification call right on day one; it determines the licensing regime that applies for the next decade.
A sportsbook sets the odds and bears the risk on the other side of a customer's bet; a prediction market matches peer orders and earns fees on volume without bearing principal risk. A binary option pays a fixed amount on a yes-or-no outcome and is functionally similar to many event contracts, but ESMA and the UK FCA banned retail marketing of binary options in 2018 and 2019 and most EU national regulators have continued the ban. The CFTC's event-contract framework permits binary-style payoffs to retail under DCM supervision, which is why the US lists retail-facing binary event contracts as regulated derivatives at scale, while the UK and most EU routes treat comparable contracts as bets or as binary options barred from retail marketing.
Yes if the product is a real-money event contract. The CFTC has stated repeatedly that all derivatives markets must operate within the bounds of the law regardless of the technology used; Polymarket's 2022 settlement with the CFTC made the point explicit at USD 1.4 million. Operators who try to serve US users from an offshore gambling licence face enforcement risk, payment-rail rejection, and customer geo-blocking that increasingly works. The two real US-access paths are (a) building a CFTC DCM from scratch, with case-specific timing and no general timetable, or (b) acquiring an existing CFTC-licensed DCM (announced and reported prices include USD 112 million for Polymarket–QCEX in and about USD 79 million for 90% of MIAXdx in ). State-level enforcement of CFTC-listed sports event contracts is still being litigated; New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court for review on .
Separate government fees, capital held, professional costs, and banking setup before comparing launch budgets. The jurisdiction comparison above sets out the regulator fees and capital for each route; the partner’s preparation work, substance, and banking set-up are quoted per case.
A CFTC DCM greenfield build carries no CFTC application fee but requires a case-specific legal, surveillance, compliance, capital, and operating budget. Anjouan is excluded because neither recognised permission nor an official fee schedule has been established.
On our planning estimates, a licence decision takes about 5–8 months for Curaçao under LOK, 4–6 months for Malta MGA Type 3, and 3–6 months for Gibraltar. The Isle of Man runs 10–12 weeks from a materially complete application, the UK Gambling Commission publishes a non-guaranteed 16-week processing time for a complete application,[38] and Estonia’s two statutory clocks for the activity licence and the operating permit add up to 6–10 months; formation and file preparation come on top. A greenfield CFTC DCM has no general timetable; assess timing against the proposed product and application record.
An acquisition has transaction-specific timing and requires CFTC review of the relevant change and designation. Anjouan has no published statutory licensing clock and is excluded as a recognised route.
Yes, and for most operators it is the realistic US-access path. Polymarket announced on that it had acquired QCEX (a CFTC-licensed DCM and DCO) for USD 112 million, and QCEX received CFTC approval of an amended order of designation enabling intermediated US customer access on . Robinhood and Susquehanna’s joint venture completed its 90% acquisition of MIAXdx on for about USD 79 million in cash under the same logic. The supply of acquirable CFTC DCMs is small but real; Crypto.com acquired Nadex in 2022 for similar reasons.
Acquisition typically requires CFTC review of the change of control and approval of any amended designation order, and the new owner usually re-papers the rulebook to fit its product strategy.
The CFTC has let them trade and backs them against the states, but whether state gaming law applies to them is contested, and as of the federal courts of appeals are split. Kalshi launched sports event contracts on and received cease-and-desist letters from more than ten US states. The Third Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction in favour of Kalshi against New Jersey on federal-preemption grounds on ; a Nevada state court granted the Nevada Gaming Control Board a temporary restraining order against Kalshi on ; the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on and on held that Kalshi had not shown the Commodity Exchange Act likely preempts Nevada's gaming laws for its sports contracts, reasoning that they are sports bets rather than swaps and that their self-certified listing was unlawful under the Commodity Exchange Act's special rule for event contracts and the CFTC's rule barring gaming contracts (17 C.F.R. § 40.11), splitting from the Third Circuit.[21]
The CFTC sued Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois on ; the New York Attorney General sued Coinbase Financial Markets and Gemini Titan on ; and the Wisconsin Attorney General sued Kalshi, Robinhood, Coinbase, Polymarket, and Crypto.com on . The CFTC's Staff Letter No. 26-08 of flagged heightened manipulation-risk scrutiny for contracts resolving on the action of a single individual, officiating decisions, or player conduct. New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court on to review the Third Circuit’s decision (No. 26-299); Kalshi’s response is due on .
On , the Sixth Circuit also rejected Kalshi's pre-emption case at the preliminary-injunction stage: it affirmed the Ohio refusal, vacated the Tennessee injunction and remanded both cases. Federal DCM status therefore does not settle state-law market access.
Not legally. Several EU member states have banned well-known prediction-market operators under national gambling law; the Oxford Business Law Blog listed Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Romania in . The UK Gambling Commission stated on that current operators not licensed in Great Britain should take steps not to target or transact with UK consumers, and that there are criminal offences associated with operating without a UK licence. Operators serving EU and UK users systematically need a local licence in each market, not an offshore licence.
Probably yes for an EU-targeting product. Where an event contract resolves on a financial-market underlier (FX, interest rates, equity indices, commodity prices, official economic statistics, climate variables) the contract is likely a binary option, a derivative in its own right and therefore a financial instrument under Annex I C(4) or C(10) of the MiFID II Directive. A binary option is not a CFD: its payout is fixed and all-or-nothing rather than varying with the underlier, and ESMA treated the two as separate product classes in its 2018 product-intervention decisions. The operator must therefore be authorised as a MiFID II investment firm with operating-an-MTF or operating-an-OTF authorisation, with initial capital under Article 9 of the Investment Firms Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of EUR 150,000, or EUR 750,000 where the firm deals on own account or is permitted to.
ESMA's 2018–2019 binary-options product intervention measures continue to make retail marketing effectively prohibited at national level across most member states; this route is realistic for institutional venues only.
Banking access and rolling-reserve terms depend on the institution, product, customer markets, and risk assessment. Obtain a written indication of account eligibility, reserves and settlement terms before fixing the launch budget. A gambling licence or DCM designation does not guarantee acceptance.
Crypto payment acceptance depends on the provider, the proposed product and the customer markets. It is not evidence that the operator is lawfully licensed. Anjouan is excluded as a recognised route; an EU payment company or crypto on-ramp does not cure the absence of gambling permission.
Start Your Prediction Market Licensing Brief
Jagelski & Partners scopes prediction-market routes in writing and introduces independent specialists for delivery. This guide compares eight jurisdiction cases across US, UK, EU, and offshore frameworks, including the excluded Anjouan case; it does not present eight available licensing options.
References
Show all references
- Kalshi, Kalshi Reaches $11 Billion Valuation as App Takes Over America, , news.kalshi.com, accessed .
- Polymarket, Polymarket Acquires CFTC-Licensed Exchange and Clearinghouse QCEX for $112 Million, PR Newswire, , prnewswire.com, accessed .
- Ashurst, Event contract in the UK: is it a financial instrument or a bet?, 2026, ashurst.com, accessed .
- CoinDesk, Winklevoss-Backed Gemini Wins CFTC Approval to Offer U.S. Prediction Markets, , coindesk.com, accessed .
- UK Gambling Commission, Prediction markets – here's what you need to know (Brad Enright, Director of Strategy), , gamblingcommission.gov.uk; corroborated by Focus Gaming News, focusgn.com, accessed .
- Predict Street / Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner, ADI Chain Announces ADI Predictstreet as the Official Prediction Market Partner of The FIFA World Cup 2026, GlobeNewswire, , globenewswire.com, accessed .
- US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Designated Contract Markets (DCMs), cftc.gov; 17 CFR Part 38 via Cornell LII, law.cornell.edu, accessed .
- CFTC, Order of Designation, KalshiEX LLC (submissions dated 30 December 2019 through 17 September 2020), cftc.gov; Kalshi, Kalshi Wins CFTC Approval for Exchange to Trade Event Contracts, , news.kalshi.com, accessed .
- Federal Register Vol. 90 p. 57899, Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations, , federalregister.gov, accessed .
- Stinson LLP, Sportsbooks or Commodity Exchanges? The Rising Legal Tensions Between Sports Betting and Prediction Markets, 2026, stinson.com, accessed .
- Federal Register / CFTC, Prediction Markets ANPRM, FR Doc. 2026-05105, , federalregister.gov, accessed .
- Malta Gaming Authority, Types of Games Licensable by the Authority, mga.org.mt and Remote Gaming Services, mga.org.mt, accessed .
- Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, Online Gambling Licence Fees (effective 6 July 2023, under the Online Gambling (Licence Fees) Regulations 2023), isleofmangsc.com; Isle of Man Treasury, Customs and Excise Division, Notice 451 MAN: Gambling Duty (updated to 9 December 2019), gov.im; PwC, Isle of Man: Corporate, Taxes on corporate income (reviewed 6 February 2026), taxsummaries.pwc.com; timeline: Legarithm, Isle of Man Gaming License 2025 Guide, legarithm.io, accessed .
- Riigi Teataja, Gambling Act of Estonia (consolidated text), riigiteataja.ee, accessed .
- Estonian Tax and Customs Board (EMTA), For gambling operators, emta.ee and Applying for permits, emta.ee, accessed .
- Landsverordening op de kansspelen (LOK), P.B. 2024 no. 157, Articles 1.1(d), 5.18, 5.19 and 6.1(3), published by the Curaçao Gaming Authority at cga.cw; Curaçao Gaming Authority, Online Gaming, cga.cw, accessed .
- Banque Centrale des Comores, Signed warning on unauthorised licensing bodies, 8 December 2025, banque-comores.km, accessed .
- Oxford Business Law Blog, Regulating Prediction Markets in Europe Requires a "Prediction Test", , blogs.law.ox.ac.uk, accessed .
- CFTC, Staff Letter No. 26-08: Prediction Markets Advisory, , cftc.gov, accessed .
- EU-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, KalshiEX, LLC v. Assad, No. 25-7516, opinion filed , ca9.uscourts.gov, accessed .
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations, notice of proposed rulemaking, Federal Register document 2026-11854, (comments closed 27 July 2026), federalregister.gov, accessed .
- UK Government, The Gambling (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 (S.I. 2026/828, made 14 July 2026, in force 1 October 2026; Schedules 5 and 6: remote operating licence application and annual fees), legislation.gov.uk, accessed .
- UK Government, The Gambling (Operating Licence and Single-Machine Permit Fees) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/303, regulation 13(3): the first annual fee for a remote operating licence is 75 per cent of the annual fee), legislation.gov.uk, accessed .
- Government of Gibraltar, Prediction Market Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/176, made under sections 34 and 159 of the Gambling Act 2025, in operation from 13 July 2026; regulations 5–8, 12, 13, 22 and 33), gibraltarlaws.gov.gi, accessed .
- Supreme Court of the United States, Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, No. 26-299, docket (petition for a writ of certiorari filed 2 September 2026; response due 9 November 2026), supremecourt.gov, accessed .
- Robinhood Markets, Inc., Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 31 March 2026 (MIAXdx: 90% acquired on 20 January 2026 for approximately USD 79 million in cash), sec.gov; Miami International Holdings, Miami International Holdings Completes Sale of MIAXdx, , sec.gov, accessed .
- European Union, Directive (EU) 2019/2034 (Investment Firms Directive), Article 9, eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- Banco Central do Brasil, Resolução CMN n.º 5.298, de 24 de abril de 2026 (arts. 3, 4 and 6; in force 4 May 2026), bcb.gov.br, accessed .
- US Code of Federal Regulations, 17 CFR 40.2 (listing products by certification) and 40.3 (voluntary submission of new products for Commission review and approval), ecfr.gov, accessed .
- Nevada Gaming Control Board, Nevada Gaming Control Board Granted TRO Against Kalshi, , gaming.nv.gov, accessed .
- CFTC, CFTC Sues Trio of States to Reaffirm its Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets (Release 9206-26), , cftc.gov; Office of the New York State Attorney General, Attorney General James Sues Coinbase and Gemini for Running Illegal Gambling Platforms in New York, , ag.ny.gov; Wisconsin Department of Justice, complaint against KalshiEX LLC, Dane County Circuit Court, wisdoj.gov, accessed .
- Malta, Gaming Authorisations Regulations (S.L. 583.05), regulations 10(1) and 11, legislation.mt; Gaming Licence Fees Regulations (S.L. 583.03), regulation 3(4) and Fourth Schedule, legislation.mt, accessed .
- Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission, Guidance for Making an Online Gambling Licence Application (v1.16, sections 1.2 and 4.1), isleofmangsc.com, accessed .
- UK Government, Gambling Act 2005, section 10 (bets regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 excluded), legislation.gov.uk, accessed .
- European Union, Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism, Article 13 (selection of credit and financial institutions for direct supervision), eur-lex.europa.eu, accessed .
- Riigi Teataja, Hasartmängumaksu seadus (Gambling Tax Act), sections 1(1) and 6, as amended by RT I, 30.12.2025, 2 (5.5% in 2026, 5% in 2027, 4.5% in 2028, 4% from 1 January 2029) and RT I, 18.02.2026, 1 (in force 1 March 2026), riigiteataja.ee; Estonian Tax and Customs Board, Gambling tax (tax rates in 2026), emta.ee, accessed .
- Gambling Commission, Licence application processing times (operating licence application: 16 weeks, based on a complete application and the Commission’s average time to reach a decision; not guaranteed), gamblingcommission.gov.uk, accessed .