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.
The market the licensing system supervises is large and growing fast. Combined notional volume across Polymarket and Kalshi exceeded USD 44 bn in 2025 according to a Keyrock and Gate Research analysis, with Kalshi alone trading USD 23.8 bn nominal across 97 million trades, reaching an USD 11 bn valuation in its Series E on , and reaching an USD 22 bn valuation in its Coatue-led Series F on .[1] Polymarket re-entered the US regulated market on by acquiring the CFTC-licensed exchange and clearinghouse QCEX for USD 112 million, the only publicly disclosed price for skipping the multi-year DCM application queue.[2]
Regulatory classification varies by what the contract resolves on. Where the underlier is a sporting result, an election or a cultural outcome, the contract is typically classified as a bet or as an event contract 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] Most regulators treat the two cases differently, which is why a clean product specification on day one saves three months in licensing later.
Prediction markets are not the same as fixed-odds sports betting (the operator sets the price and bears the risk) or as binary options for retail (banned by ESMA and the UK FCA in 2018–2019). They sit closer to a regulated derivatives exchange in mechanics, with peer-to-peer order matching, central clearing where required, and revenue from transaction fees rather than from holding the other side of a customer's position. That mechanical similarity is what makes the CFTC framework the dominant US route, and what makes the financial-instrument framing available in the EU for the narrow subset of contracts that resolve on financial underliers.
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. The buyer is materially different from the buyer of a gambling licence or a forex broker licence, and the page assumes the reader has already worked out that their product is not a fixed-odds sportsbook and not a binary-options retail broker.
The clearest case 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.
The second profile is the fintech or brokerage founder adding event contracts to an existing equity, derivatives or crypto product. This is the Robinhood and Susquehanna pattern (their acquisition of 90% of MIAXdx closed on ), 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 almost always M&A or affiliate registration: an existing DCM is cheaper than a 4-to-6-year application, and intermediary registration via the NFA is cheaper still for operators that do not need their own exchange.
The third profile is the regulated betting-exchange operator extending into prediction markets as a near-adjacent product. Matchbook launched the UK's first regulated prediction market in 2026 under its existing UK Gambling Commission betting-exchange licence, after the Gambling Commission confirmed on that the activity would currently fall within the UK definition of a betting intermediary.[5] If a UKGC betting-intermediary or equivalent licence is already held, no separate prediction-market authorisation is needed in that jurisdiction.
The fourth profile is the sovereign-linked or family-office-backed consumer brand. The clearest example: ADI Predictstreet 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.
Prediction markets, 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
Prediction-market jurisdiction selection runs across four regulatory regimes, not one. Eight jurisdictions cover the practical decision set: the United States via the CFTC, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar in the betting-intermediary track, Malta, the Isle of Man and Estonia in the EU gambling track, and Curaçao and Anjouan in the offshore gambling track. Each regime serves a different operator profile and different user base.
Regime 1: US CFTC Designated Contract Market (United States)
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission is the primary regulator for event contracts 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 11 months from filing to designation in November 2020, and Gemini Titan's ran from to , almost six years.[8]
There is no published CFTC application filing fee. The recurring oversight obligation, however, is documented: the Commission's annual cost for reviewing the NFA rule-enforcement programme is USD 606,059 per the 15 December 2025 Federal Register notice, and per-DCM oversight tracks the same statutory formula.[9] Practitioner observation: the binding cost on a greenfield CFTC DCM is not the government fee but the surveillance, compliance and capital build, which industry advisories from Katten, WilmerHale and Sidley imply runs in the USD 3–10 million range over a 12-to-24 month application window, plus 12 months of operating expenses evidenced as financial resources. Operators add a Derivatives Clearing Organization and intermediating Futures Commission Merchants on top.
The M&A alternative is the only public benchmark for the path's commercial value: Polymarket's acquisition of QCEX (QCX LLC plus QC Clearing LLC), a CFTC-licensed DCM and DCO, closed at USD 112 million.[2] CFTC approval of an amended order of designation permitting intermediated US customer access followed on . Editorial position: for any operator that needs US retail access in less than four years, M&A is the realistic path; a greenfield CFTC DCM application is the right answer only for operators with capital, runway and a multi-year 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 Nevada's temporary ban took effect in March 2026 and the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on .[10]
The federal-state conflict escalated through April 2026: 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 . A Supreme Court resolution is widely expected. The CFTC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on with comments closed ; a follow-on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is expected in late 2026.[11]
In practice, the operative difference between the CFTC §40.2 self-certification path and the §40.3 voluntary-review path is the state-enforcement risk that follows from each: self-certified contracts go live in one business day but expose the DCM to immediate state-attorney-general action on the federal-preemption question, while §40.3 voluntary review pre-clears the contract with CFTC staff over 45 days and is the path Kalshi and Gemini Titan have used since the New Jersey injunction litigation began, because a CFTC pre-clearance materially strengthens the preemption defence at the state court.
Regime 2: UK and Gibraltar Betting Intermediary (United Kingdom, Gibraltar)
The UK Gambling Commission confirmed on that prediction markets fall within the existing definition of a "betting intermediary" under the Gambling Act 2005, and that operating one without a UK licence is a criminal offence.[5] The licence application fee for the lowest-band remote betting-intermediary licence (F1, gross gambling yield under GBP 550,000) is GBP 9,138, and annual fees scale with gross gambling yield from GBP 5,282 at F1 to over GBP 1,077,000 at L1 (gross gambling yield above GBP 1 bn). Realistic application timeline is 16 weeks indicative, longer in practice. Where event contracts settle on financial underliers, FCA permissions may also be triggered alongside the gambling licence.
Gibraltar became the first UK-zone regulator to issue a dedicated prediction-market licence: betting-intermediary licence #56 to Predict Street Ltd. on , operator of the ADI Predictstreet platform that is now the FIFA World Cup 2026 official prediction-market partner.[6] Gibraltar's B2C remote gambling licence currently carries a GBP 100,000 annual fee floor with real local substance requirements and post-2024 corporate tax at 15%; the Gibraltar Gambling Act 2025 is under transition and a publicly consulted GGY-tiered fee schedule (GBP 50,000 / GBP 100,000 / GBP 200,000) may take effect during 2026. Practitioner observation: Gibraltar's GOSS framework under the 2025 Gambling Act creates an explicit B2B-supplier path for the surveillance, market-integrity and managed-trading firms a prediction-market operator typically depends on, which is unusual in the betting-intermediary world.
Regime 3: EU and Offshore Gambling Licensing (Malta, Isle of Man, Estonia, Curaçao, Anjouan)
For operators not targeting the United States or the United Kingdom, five gambling jurisdictions accommodate prediction markets under their existing peer-to-peer or betting-exchange licence categories. The Malta Gaming Authority's Type 3 licence covers 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 running from EUR 25,000 to EUR 500,000 per year, minimum share capital EUR 40,000, and a 10-year licence term once granted.
The Isle of Man's Online Gambling Regulation Act 2001 ("OGRA") full licence covers prediction-market activity in principle: GBP 5,250 application, GBP 36,750 annual, 1.5% gaming duty on the first GBP 20m of gross gaming yield falling to 0.1% above GBP 40m, 0% corporate tax. Application timeline is 10–12 weeks from material completeness against a five-year licence cycle.[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 activity licence (perpetual) at a state fee of EUR 31,960, followed by an operating permit (5-year term) at EUR 3,200 (skill games) or EUR 47,940 (chance), with minimum share capital of EUR 130,000. The remote gambling tax is 5.5% of net stakes less prizes as of , on a phased reduction toward 4% by 2028 under the legislation passed by the Riigikogu on .[15]
Curaçao is the dominant offshore choice for prediction markets and operates under the new Landsverordening op de Kansspelen ("LOK") in force from , replacing the 1993 master and sub-licence structure with a direct B2C and B2B regime supervised by the CGA. Application fee EUR 4,592, annual B2C fee EUR 47,450, and indefinite-term licences subject to ongoing supervision. The substance bar has risen materially: resident managing director, full UBO disclosure to 10%, on-island data hosting, AML alignment with FATF Recommendations, and a phased scaling of local Key Persons.[16]
Anjouan is the only jurisdiction whose published activity list explicitly names prediction markets alongside online casinos, sports betting and poker.[17] All-in Year-1 cost runs roughly EUR 17,000–40,000 and timeline is 3–4 weeks from a complete file. Practitioner observation: Tier-1 EU acquirers and EMIs routinely decline Anjouan-only structures even when the licence is formally valid, and operators almost always layer an EU or EEA payment-agent company to access fiat rails, which adds EUR 25,000–80,000 in annual structural cost. Crypto on-ramps continue to accept Anjouan freely, which is why it dominates the crypto-native prediction-market segment.
Regime 4: MiFID II Investment Firm (financial-underlier contracts only)
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, which is a subset of CFD, and therefore a Section C(4) or C(10) financial instrument under Annex I of the MiFID II Directive.[3] The 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 of EUR 730,000 to EUR 2 million under the Investment Firms Regulation. Editorial position: no operator currently holds 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 the bloc. This route is realistic for institutional event-contract venues only.
The common mistake is treating the binary-options product-intervention ban as a blanket prohibition on peer-matched event contracts; the ban turns on the MiFID II Article 4(1)(15) financial-instrument test, which captures cash-settled binary contracts on financial underliers but does not capture contracts on non-financial event resolutions (sporting outcomes, political results, cultural events), and the distinction is the regulatory daylight that Polymarket-style peer-matched markets occupy in EU member states that classify the non-financial subset as gambling rather than as a regulated financial instrument.
The Polymarket M&A Shortcut
The single most important reference price in prediction-market licensing is USD 112 million: what Polymarket paid in to acquire QCEX and skip the multi-year CFTC DCM application queue.[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 90% acquisition of MIAXdx closed on for an undisclosed price under a similar M&A-shortcut logic.[4] For operators that need US retail access on a 12–18 month horizon, acquiring a CFTC-licensed DCM or DCO is the established commercial path.
Jurisdiction comparison
The eight licensing options below sit across four regulatory regimes: 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 gambling regime (Malta MGA, Isle of Man GSC, Estonia EMTA); and the offshore gambling regime (Curaçao CGA, Anjouan AOFA). Rows below are ordered in that sequence.
| Jurisdiction | Regulator | Licence Type | Total Year 1 Cost | Timeline | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | CFTC | DCM (greenfield) or DCM acquisition | USD 3–10m greenfield estimate; USD 112m reference acquisition price (Polymarket–QCEX, 2025) | 4–6 years greenfield; 6–12 months via M&A | Operators needing US retail access at scale |
| United Kingdom | UKGC | Remote Betting Intermediary | GBP 9,138≈ $12K application + GBP 5,282–1,077,000+≈ $7K–1.4M annual | 16+ weeks | Operators targeting UK retail (regulated only) |
| Gibraltar | Gambling Commissioner | B2C Betting Intermediary | GBP 100,000+≈ $134K annual | 3–6 months | Operators wanting UK-zone credibility plus EU and global reach |
| Malta | MGA | Type 3 peer-to-peer / Betting Exchange | EUR 5k application + EUR 25k+ annual + EUR 25k–500k compliance contribution + EUR 40k capital | 4–6 months | EU and EEA-targeting operators needing institutional credibility |
| Isle of Man | GSC | OGRA Full Licence | GBP 5,250≈ $7K 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 31,960 state fee + EUR 130,000 capital | 6–10 months | EU-targeting operators with Estonian or Baltic anchor |
| Curaçao | CGA (under LOK) | B2C Online Gaming Licence | EUR 4.6k application + EUR 47.5k annual | 3–6 months | Crypto-native operators targeting LatAm, Asia, Africa, CIS |
| Anjouan | AOFA / ALSI (claimed) | Internet Gaming Licence (explicitly names prediction markets) | EUR 17–40k all-in Year 1 | 3–4 weeks | Speed-to-market crypto-only operators with layered fiat structure |
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. The United States requires CFTC DCM access for event contracts (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. Most major EU member states (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain) have effectively banned the current prediction-market operators under national gambling law per the Oxford Business Law Blog's March 2026 analysis.[18] Brazil's SPA framework under Lei 14.790/2023 captures real-money event-resolution products on a state-by-state basis. The UAE's VARA, ADGM and DIFC frameworks do not currently address prediction markets and route activity through corporate-holding structures licensed elsewhere.
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 and capital, technology and operational resilience, and corporate substance with fit-and-proper key persons. The depth required scales sharply by regime, with CFTC DCM at the top and offshore gambling at the bottom.
Market integrity and surveillance
CFTC DCMs operate against 23 Core Principles in 17 CFR Part 38, 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. Practitioner observation: 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
All four regimes treat the prediction-market operator as an obligated entity. EU operators come under Regulation 2024/1624 (the EU AML Regulation), applicable in full from , with customer due diligence triggered at EUR 2,000 in single or linked transactions, supervised by the Anti-Money-Laundering Authority in Frankfurt with national supervisors covering gambling.[20] CFTC DCMs operate AML programmes through their FCM and IB intermediaries under the Bank Secrecy Act. UKGC licensees comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and report to the FCA-aligned National Crime Agency. Offshore Curaçao and Anjouan operators must align with FATF Recommendations on paper; in practice the Tier-1 banking-rail gap 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. CFTC DCMs segregate at the FCM layer and demonstrate at least 12 months of operating expenses as financial resources before designation. Malta MGA Type 3 requires EUR 40,000 minimum capital plus a Player Protection Deposit framework. Estonia requires EUR 130,000 share capital for toto. Curaçao under LOK requires "sufficient financial resources" for six months of operations and player payouts. Anjouan requires nominal substance with no formal capital floor. 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 under LOK introduced mandatory on-island hosting in high-availability data centres. CFTC DCMs operate against Regulation Automated Trading-equivalent system-safeguards rules and submit annual System Safeguards Examinations. Editorial position: a prediction-market platform's settlement guarantees are only as strong as its oracle architecture and its dispute-resolution framework; regulators across all four regimes are now writing explicit oracle-governance and event-resolution rules, and the gap between operators that have designed for this from day one and operators that bolt it on later is widening visibly.
Corporate substance and fit-and-proper key persons
Substance scales by regime. CFTC DCMs require Chief Regulatory Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Regulatory Oversight Committee, and full US-resident leadership. Malta and Isle of Man require resident director, locally employed compliance officer, and fit-and-proper screening of every UBO holding 10% or more. Curaçao under LOK requires a resident managing director and a phased scaling of local Key Persons through 2028 and 2029. Estonia requires Estonian PLC or LLC with gambling as the only company activity. Anjouan requires nominal substance and technology-provider approval for B2C operators. UBO disclosure thresholds run from 10% (Curaçao, Malta) to 25% (most offshore).
How Jagelski & Partners Helps
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. We assess the product and target users first, then recommend the regime that fits commercial reality, then sequence the workstreams so that capital, substance and banking are ready before the regulator asks.
The first work item is 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. The US CFTC DCM path is realistic only as M&A for almost every operator we work with; greenfield DCM applications make sense only on a 4-to-6 year horizon. The UK and Gibraltar betting-intermediary path is realistic for operators that already understand UKGC operational compliance. The offshore gambling path is realistic for crypto-native operators with disciplined geo-blocking. The MiFID II path is realistic only for institutional financial-underlier venues.
Once the regime is selected, we run formation in parallel with the licence application. For Malta and Gibraltar that means a Maltese or Gibraltarian holding company with resident director and registered office in place before the file goes in. For Estonia that means an Estonian gambling-activity-only OÜ. For Curaçao under LOK that means a Curaçao NV with resident managing director and on-island data-centre tenancy. We coordinate formation with our company formation service so that corporate substance is delivered at the depth the licence requires, not the cheapest depth available.
Banking placement runs alongside, not after. Prediction markets are a Tier-1 high-risk category at every acquirer and EMI, and operators that arrive with an Anjouan-only structure typically need a layered EU or EEA payment-agent company to access fiat rails. Editorial position: the operators we onboard most successfully are the ones that calibrate banking expectations to the prediction-market category from day one, not to their previous fintech or crypto-exchange experience; the recalibration is the single most important conversation in the first thirty days. Banking pre-qualification is handled through our high-risk business accounts workflow with the institutional network we work through.
For US-track mandates, we coordinate referral to specialist US derivatives counsel for the CFTC DCM application or acquisition itself. Jagelski & Partners does not deliver US legal services and is not a US-regulated firm, but the regime call, capital structuring and supporting non-US operations sit cleanly with us; the US licensing leg sits with specialist counsel introduced through the partner network. The same logic applies on the UKGC track for operators that need an FCA-aligned dual permission.
For licensing work, Jagelski & Partners is engaged by the client on a fixed-fee or fixed-fee-plus-success basis depending on mandate type. For banking placement coordinated alongside, Jagelski & Partners is paid by the institution, not by the client. 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 prediction markets currently fall within the existing UK definition of a betting intermediary, and operating one without a UKGC licence is a criminal offence. Most 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 is currently the only major regime in which retail-facing binary event contracts are legally listable at scale.
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 (4–6 years), or (b) acquiring an existing CFTC-licensed DCM (Polymarket–QCEX, USD 112 million in , is the public benchmark). State-level enforcement of CFTC-listed sports event contracts is still being litigated and is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Year-1 all-in costs range from roughly EUR 30,000 (Anjouan, all-in including layered payment-agent setup) to USD 112 million (the Polymarket–QCEX benchmark for skipping the CFTC DCM application queue). Realistic ranges by regime: Anjouan EUR 30–80k, Curaçao under LOK EUR 90–180k, Estonia toto EUR 200–350k including capital, Malta MGA Type 3 EUR 200–600k depending on compliance contribution band, Isle of Man OGRA GBP 150–400k, Gibraltar B2C GBP 250–500k, UK UKGC GBP 200–600k depending on GGY band. CFTC DCM greenfield builds run USD 3–10 million in legal and advisory costs over a multi-year application window plus 12 months of operating expenses evidenced as financial resources.
Realistic timelines from formation through licence grant are 3–4 weeks for Anjouan, 3–6 months for Curaçao under LOK, 10–12 weeks for the Isle of Man OGRA, 4–6 months for Malta MGA Type 3, 6–10 months for Estonia (activity licence plus operating permit), 3–6 months for Gibraltar, 16 weeks plus for the UK UKGC, and 4–6 years for a greenfield CFTC DCM (Kalshi ran 11 months, Gemini Titan ran almost six years, QCEX ran more than four years on the founder's account). M&A acquisition of an existing CFTC DCM typically closes in 6–12 months including CFTC approval of the amended order of designation.
Yes, and for most operators it is the realistic US-access path. Polymarket acquired QCEX (a CFTC-licensed DCM and DCO) on for USD 112 million and received CFTC approval of an amended order of designation enabling intermediated US customer access on . Robinhood and Susquehanna closed their 90% acquisition of MIAXdx on 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.
As of , yes as a matter of CFTC policy, but with active state-level litigation. 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 ; Nevada's temporary ban took effect in ; the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on .
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. Supreme Court review is widely expected.
Not legally. Most EU member states have effectively banned the current generation of prediction-market operators under national gambling law; the Oxford Business Law Blog confirmed in that Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain have either explicit bans or active enforcement. 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, which is a subset of CFD and therefore a financial instrument under Annex I C(4) or C(10) of the MiFID II Directive. The operator must therefore be authorised as a MiFID II investment firm with operating-an-MTF or operating-an-OTF authorisation, with initial capital of EUR 730k–2m under the Investment Firms Regulation. 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.
It depends sharply on the regime. CFTC DCMs and Tier-1 EU and UK gambling licences clear Tier-1 bank and acquirer onboarding with standard rolling-reserve conditions. Malta, Isle of Man, Estonia and Gibraltar typically run through Tier-1 EU EMIs and acquirers. Curaçao under LOK is bankable through Tier-2 acquirers and EMIs at 10–20% rolling reserves. Anjouan-anchored structures rarely access Tier-1 EU rails directly and need a layered EU or EEA payment-agent company, which adds EUR 25,000–80,000 in annual structural cost. Crypto on-ramps accept all regimes including the offshore options, which is why crypto-native operators dominate the offshore gambling tier.
Start Your Prediction Market Licensing Mandate
Jagelski & Partners maps prediction-market products to the right regulatory regime, sequences corporate formation, banking and licence application in parallel, and covers the US, UK, EU and offshore tracks across eight jurisdictions.
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, Industry Filings – QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US, 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 via Legarithm, Isle of Man Gaming License 2025 Guide, legarithm.io; Asia Gaming Brief, Isle of Man: A look at Online Gambling Jurisdictions in 2024, agbrief.com, 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 .
- Curacao Gaming Authority, Online Gaming, cga.cw and licensing portal, portal.gamingcontrolcuracao.org, accessed .
- Anjouan Gaming, About Us (lists "Prediction markets" as a permitted activity), anjouangaming.com, 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 .