\n
<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe joint filing backs federal oversight but asks the CFTC to clarify settlement tests and publish its reasoning after every contract review.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
The Hyperliquid Policy Center and Multicoin Capital submitted a joint comment to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on July 27th.<\/p>\n
They expressed support for the agency\u2019s proposed prediction market<\/a> framework but also pressed for two changes that could affect how on-chain event contracts are designed and approved.<\/p>\n The filing is a direct response to the CFTC\u2019s \u201cPrediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations\u201d proposal published earlier in June. It aims to amend Regulation 40.11 and seeks to establish a 90-day process for reviewing event contracts that may involve gaming, war, terrorism, assassination, or other activities listed in the Commodity Exchange Act, among other things.<\/p>\n HPC and Multicoin called the plan a \u201cclear and well-reasoned framework.\u201d They argued that prediction markets belong under the CFTC\u2019s exclusive federal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n The letter also states that regulating prediction markets on a state level, creating \u201cfifty separate state regimes,\u201d would fragment national derivatives markets.<\/p>\n Prediction markets topped $50 billion in trading volume last month, and the biggest names in traditional finance are moving in.<\/p>\n Today, with @multicoin<\/a>, we filed a joint comment supporting the @CFTC<\/a> \u2018s proposed prediction markets framework.<\/p>\n These markets have grown up. The\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/pYG4mevmbT<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Hyperliquid Policy Center (@HyperliquidPC) July 27, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The first concern that the group outlines is related to the use of one word in the Commodity Exchange Act: \u201cinvolve.\u201d Under the statute\u2019s rule, the CFTC can review contracts that involve certain listed activities and prohibit them when they are contrary to the public interest.<\/p>\n The letter supports an interpretation focused on settlement. Instead of treating trading itself as gaming, regulators would have to examine the event that determines the payout. A contract would fall within the special rule when settlement directly turns on illegal activity, not merely because buying it resembles placing a wager.<\/p>\n In addition, the group asked for more examples. Edge cases may include certain contracts with several potential paths to settlement or products that reference a sensitive activity only indirectly. Clear illustrations would help exchanges and developers assess regulatory exposure before having to commit resources to a launch.<\/p>\n The second recommendation concerns what happens after a review under Regulation 40.11. Under the current proposal, the CFTC would publish written findings when it blocks a contract and explain how that particular decision fits with earlier findings.<\/p>\n HPC and Multicoin argue that this could create an information gap: an approval, including by inaction, can reveal as much about the regulatory boundaries as a prohibition. Without any public reasoning, other platforms may repeat the same legal work, seek guidance, or avoid products that could have been permissible.<\/p>\n In any case, it\u2019s interesting to follow developments surrounding the letter and whether the CFTC would adopt the two requested changes. This could be a signal that regulators are actively listening to industry experts and attempt to legislate in a way that\u2019s both fair to anyone involved.<\/p>\n\n
Settlement: Key Regulatory Test<\/h2>\n
You may also like:<\/h3>\n
Transparency Could Become a Competitive Requirement<\/h2>\n
\nLIMITED OFFER for CryptoPotato readers at Bybit: Use this link<\/a> to register and open a $500 FREE position on any coin!<\/b><\/div>\n<\/div>\n