CME Chairman Terry Duffy and Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara traded insults at a CFTC roundtable over whether prediction markets are legitimate financial infrastructure or carnival games. The confrontation is the public face of a deeper regulatory battle between federal and state authorities, incumbent exchanges and startups, and two incompatible visions of what derivatives markets should look like.
Summary
- CME Group Chairman Terry Duffy and Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara clashed during a CFTC roundtable on prediction markets in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 21, 2026, in an exchange that featured personal insults, sarcasm about hot dog eating contests, and competing claims about market manipulation.
- Duffy called prediction market operators “carnival barkers” and said CME has “more people in my regulatory department than you have in your whole company,” to which Lara responded that CME should “learn a bit about efficiency.”
- The confrontation reflects a broader fight between federal and state regulators over whether prediction market contracts are federally regulated derivatives or state-level gambling products, with the CFTC suing states that attempt to block Kalshi’s operations.
- A U.S. survey published Aug. 12 found that 79% of prediction market users lost money in the past year, with 51% using borrowed funds, adding a consumer protection dimension to a debate that has been framed primarily as a jurisdictional question.
- New York has sued Kalshi for at least $36 billion in damages, calling it an unlicensed gambling operation, while the CFTC has used emergency powers to keep Kalshi trading amid the legal challenge.
The CFTC roundtable on prediction markets was supposed to be a policy discussion. It became a fight.
Terry Duffy, the chairman of CME Group, the world’s largest futures exchange, sat across from Luana Lopes Lara, the co-founder of Kalshi, a prediction market platform that lets users bet on everything from Bitcoin’s next price move to the Nathan’s hot dog eating contest. What followed was the most heated public exchange between financial industry executives in recent memory, and it happened in a government hearing room with cameras rolling.
The video is on YouTube. The quotes are real. And the fight, while personal, is the surface expression of a regulatory collision that will determine whether prediction markets become a permanent part of the U.S. financial system or get regulated out of existence.
What happened in the room
The CFTC convened the roundtable to discuss how event contracts should be regulated. Event contracts are futures that settle at $1 based on whether a specific outcome occurs. A contract on “Bitcoin above $80,000 by September 1” might trade at $0.45, implying a 45% probability. If Bitcoin is above $80,000 on that date, the contract pays $1. If not, it pays zero.
Duffy opened his remarks by saying he was “a lot concerned” about prediction markets and questioning whether they face the same regulatory scrutiny as established exchanges.
“We are not a bunch of carnival barkers at a circus,” Duffy said. “We are running the most envious markets in the world in the United States of America.”
He then singled out Kalshi by name, mocking one of its contracts. “There is another really economic contract that has been massively important for the United States,” Duffy said sarcastically. “That is a Nathan’s hot dog eating contest.”
Duffy also questioned why Kalshi could offer a compute prediction market while CME’s proposed compute contracts remained under CFTC review. The implication was clear: Kalshi operates under lighter regulatory oversight than CME, and that disparity is unfair.
After being called out by name, Lara responded. “I just wanted to respond since we were called by name here,” she said. “I would actually have to ask Terry: Has CME ever had any issues with any market manipulation, any issues ever in its history?”
Duffy deflected. “If you would like to have a debate, I am happy to have a debate with you.”
“I am just asking a simple answer to a question,” Lara said.
“I have more people in my regulatory department than you have in your whole company,” Duffy said.
“Maybe you should learn a bit about efficiency then,” Lara fired back.
“Well, maybe you should learn about credible markets,” Duffy replied, before moderator Walt Lukken stepped in to redirect the conversation.
DraftKings CEO Jason Robins, who was also on the panel, later urged participants to stop attacking each other’s businesses. “I would just ask everybody, both in this hearing and then also in future communications, to try to refrain from taking shots at each other’s business models or decisions you may not 100% agree with,” Robins said. “That does not advance the discussion.”
The jurisdictional war beneath the insults
The Duffy-Lara exchange was personal, but the fight is structural. Prediction markets in the United States sit at the intersection of three regulatory frameworks, and none of them fit cleanly.
The federal framework. The CFTC has claimed jurisdiction over event contracts as federally regulated derivatives. Under CFTC rules, platforms like Kalshi can list contracts on a wide range of outcomes, from commodity prices to weather events to elections, as long as the contracts meet certain requirements around market integrity and price discovery.
The state framework. Multiple states argue that prediction market contracts are gambling products subject to state gambling laws, not federal derivatives law. If states prevail, platforms like Kalshi would need state-by-state gambling licenses, fundamentally changing their business model and cost structure.
The unresolved middle. Some contracts fit neatly into the derivatives framework (a contract on oil prices, for example). Others fit more naturally into the gambling framework (a contract on the Nathan’s hot dog eating contest). The question of where the line falls between “legitimate price discovery” and “dressed-up gambling” is the central regulatory question, and nobody has answered it.
CFTC Chair Selig has defended the agency’s jurisdiction aggressively. In February 2026, he warned states challenging federal authority with a blunt statement: “We will see you in court.” The agency has since taken legal action against states seeking to regulate event contracts under their gambling laws.
In June 2026, the CFTC proposed restrictions on certain contracts involving war or assassination and some sports proposition bets considered particularly susceptible to manipulation. Nine Democratic senators followed up by urging the CFTC to prohibit wildfire event contracts, warning they could create incentives for arson, insider trading, and disaster profiteering.
The proposals reveal an agency trying to walk a line: maintain jurisdiction over prediction markets while acknowledging that some contracts raise legitimate public policy concerns. The CFTC wants to regulate these markets, not eliminate them. But the more contracts the agency restricts, the stronger the argument becomes that the contracts are not really derivatives and should be regulated as gambling.
The New York lawsuit
The highest-stakes legal battle is in New York. The state filed suit against Kalshi, seeking at least $36 billion in damages and calling the platform an unlicensed gambling operation. The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order to halt Kalshi’s contracts immediately.
The $36 billion figure is attention-grabbing because it is larger than Kalshi’s entire lifetime volume. New York calculated it by applying state penalties to the number of individual contracts traded on the platform, a methodology that produces an astronomical headline number regardless of whether it would survive judicial scrutiny.
Separately, a Washington state judge ordered Kalshi to stop offering contracts on sports, elections, politics, and other events, finding it likely violated state gambling and consumer protection laws. Two days before the Washington ruling, the CFTC invoked emergency powers to keep Kalshi trading amid the legal challenge, setting up a direct conflict between federal and state authority.
The collision course is now explicit. The CFTC says Kalshi’s contracts are federally regulated derivatives. Multiple states say they are illegal gambling. Both cannot be right, and the resolution will likely come from the courts, not from legislation, because Congress has shown no appetite for addressing the jurisdictional question directly.
What CME is really fighting about
Duffy’s attack on Kalshi was not just about hot dog contests. CME Group operates the world’s largest futures exchange by volume, with more than $1 billion in daily revenue from trading fees. The exchange is publicly traded with a market capitalization exceeding $80 billion.
Prediction markets are a competitive threat to CME for a specific reason: they democratize access to event-driven trading. CME’s existing event contracts require institutional infrastructure to access. A retail trader who wants to bet on a Federal Reserve interest rate decision through CME needs a futures account, a broker, and margin requirements. A retail trader who wants to make the same bet through Kalshi needs a phone and a $5 deposit.
The fee structures are also different. CME charges per-contract fees that generate revenue proportional to volume. Kalshi charges lower fees on smaller notional values, targeting a mass retail audience rather than an institutional one. If prediction markets grow, they do not just create a new market. They create a substitute for the lower end of CME’s existing business.
Duffy’s “more people in my regulatory department” comment was not just about compliance. It was about cost structure. CME’s regulatory overhead is a competitive disadvantage if prediction market platforms can offer similar products without comparable costs. Duffy’s implicit argument is that prediction markets are competing unfairly because they are not held to the same standards.
Lara’s “efficiency” response was equally pointed. Kalshi’s pitch to regulators and the public is that it can provide the same market functions (price discovery, risk transfer, information aggregation) at lower cost because it is building on modern technology rather than maintaining decades-old infrastructure.
The consumer protection question nobody raised
Notably absent from the CFTC roundtable was any sustained discussion of consumer outcomes. A U.S. survey published on Aug. 12 by BadCredit.org found that 79% of prediction market users lost money in the past year. Fifty-one percent used borrowed funds to place bets.
These numbers are worse than the historical loss rates for retail futures trading (estimated at 70 to 75%) and comparable to the loss rates for retail forex trading in the U.S. (approximately 80%). The comparison to gambling is even more direct: state lottery commissions report that players lose an average of 50 cents on every dollar wagered, a better expected return than most prediction market users achieved.
The survey was not mentioned at the roundtable. Neither Duffy nor Lara referenced consumer loss rates. The CFTC commissioners did not raise them. The entire discussion was framed as a jurisdictional question (who regulates these markets?) rather than a consumer protection question (are these markets good for the people using them?).
This framing gap is significant because the strongest argument for state regulation is consumer protection. If 79% of users are losing money and half are borrowing to participate, the case for treating prediction markets as gambling products rather than financial instruments becomes substantially stronger, regardless of how the contracts are structured.
The math that makes prediction markets a threat
The economic case for why CME is fighting this hard comes down to three numbers.
CME Group reported average daily volume of approximately 24 million contracts in Q2 2026 across all product lines, including interest rates, equities, energy, agricultural commodities, metals, and foreign exchange. The exchange generated $5.6 billion in revenue in 2025. Its business model is built on a simple equation: more contracts traded at a per-contract fee equals more revenue.
Prediction markets are currently a fraction of CME’s scale. Kalshi’s cumulative lifetime volume is in the low billions of dollars. Polymarket peaked during the 2024 U.S. presidential election with approximately $3.5 billion in total volume. These numbers are rounding errors on CME’s balance sheet.
But the growth rate is not. Prediction market volume roughly tripled between 2024 and 2025 and is on pace to triple again in 2026. If that trajectory continues, prediction markets will process more volume in 2028 than CME’s foreign exchange or agricultural commodity divisions do today.
The strategic threat is not that Kalshi will replace CME. It is that prediction markets will capture the marginal growth in event-driven trading that would otherwise flow to CME’s newer product lines. CME has been expanding into weather derivatives, real estate futures, and other event-linked contracts. Prediction markets offer simpler, cheaper versions of the same exposure to a retail audience that CME’s institutional infrastructure cannot economically serve.
Duffy’s “more people in my regulatory department” comment was therefore not just about compliance. It was about whether the cost structure that makes CME a trusted institutional venue also makes it unable to compete for the retail end of the event-trading market. If the answer is yes, CME’s best strategy is not to build a better product. It is to raise the regulatory cost of entry until the competition cannot afford to operate.
The international dimension
The U.S. fight over prediction market regulation is playing out against an international backdrop that neither side discussed at the roundtable.
The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority has taken a permissive approach to prediction markets, classifying most event contracts as derivatives and regulating them under existing market frameworks. Several prediction market platforms have established U.K. operations as a hedge against U.S. regulatory risk.
The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation does not specifically address prediction markets but provides a framework under which event contracts tied to crypto assets could be classified and regulated. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has signaled interest in the category but has not proposed specific rules.
Singapore’s Monetary Authority has taken a more restrictive approach, treating most prediction market contracts as gambling products and requiring platform operators to hold a gambling license.
The divergence matters because prediction markets are inherently global. A contract on “U.S. Federal Reserve raises rates in September” is equally useful to a trader in New York, London, or Singapore. If U.S. regulation becomes prohibitively restrictive, volume will migrate to jurisdictions with clearer rules, just as crypto trading volume migrated to offshore exchanges when U.S. regulation tightened.
CME would be hurt less by this migration than Kalshi, because CME already has a global footprint and can offer similar products through its European and Asian subsidiaries. Kalshi, as a U.S.-focused startup, would face an existential threat if its domestic market were closed by state regulation while international competitors operated freely.
The crypto connection
Prediction markets are not exclusively a crypto phenomenon, but crypto has been central to their growth. Polymarket, the largest prediction market by volume, operates on the Polygon blockchain. Kalshi accepts crypto deposits. Several newer platforms are built entirely on-chain.
The crypto connection creates a second regulatory complexity layer. If prediction market contracts are federally regulated derivatives, are crypto-native prediction markets subject to CFTC oversight? If they are gambling products, are they subject to state gambling laws even when they operate on decentralized infrastructure that has no physical presence in any state?
The CLARITY Act, currently working through Congress, does not directly address prediction markets. But its resolution of the securities-versus-commodities question for digital assets could indirectly affect how prediction market tokens and platforms are classified.
More directly, the prediction market regulatory fight is a preview of the jurisdictional battles that the broader crypto industry will face if the CLARITY Act fails. Without a federal framework, states will fill the vacuum, creating a patchwork of rules that vary by jurisdiction. This is already happening with prediction markets, and the result is legal chaos: the same contracts are legal in some states, illegal in others, and the subject of competing federal and state court orders that directly contradict each other.
What a competitor could not write: the insurance analogy CME will not use
There is an argument that neither side made at the roundtable, and it is the most clarifying frame for the entire debate.
Prediction market contracts on real-world events function as insurance. A farmer who buys a contract on “drought in Iowa before October” is hedging crop risk. A supply chain manager who buys a contract on “port strike in September” is hedging logistics risk. An energy company that buys a contract on “hurricane making landfall in the Gulf” is hedging infrastructure risk.
Insurance markets are some of the most heavily regulated markets in the world, and they are regulated at the state level. Every state has an insurance commissioner. Every insurance product requires state approval. The regulatory framework exists because insurance contracts involve real-world risks that affect real people, and the potential for fraud, manipulation, and adverse selection is high.
Prediction markets on real-world events are structurally identical to insurance contracts. The only difference is the label. If prediction markets were called “event insurance,” the jurisdictional question would not exist. They would be state-regulated by default.
CME cannot make this argument because it would undermine its own position. CME wants prediction markets classified as derivatives, not insurance, because CME’s competitive advantage is in the derivatives framework, not the insurance framework. But the insurance analogy is the most intellectually honest description of what prediction market contracts actually do.
Kalshi cannot make this argument either, because insurance regulation is even more restrictive than derivatives regulation. State insurance commissioners would require actuarial justification for every contract, capital reserves for every potential payout, and approval processes that would slow product launches to a crawl.
Both sides prefer the current ambiguity to the clarity that the insurance analogy would provide, because the clarity would disadvantage both of them in different ways.
What to watch
– The New York lawsuit timeline. If the court grants the temporary restraining order, Kalshi’s operations in New York stop immediately, setting up an emergency appeal that could reach the Second Circuit within weeks.
– CFTC final rulemaking on restricted contract categories. The June 2026 proposed restrictions on war, assassination, and certain sports contracts will become final rules. The scope of the restrictions will signal how aggressively the CFTC is willing to police the line between derivatives and gambling.
– Prediction market user loss rate data from the CFTC or a Congressional study. If the 79% loss rate figure enters the regulatory record, it strengthens the consumer protection argument for state regulation.
– CME launching its own event contracts. If CME files for CFTC approval of event contracts that directly compete with Kalshi’s offerings, the competitive dynamic changes from “should these markets exist?” to “who should operate them?”
– The CLARITY Act prediction market amendment, if one is filed. Any language in the CLARITY Act that addresses event contract jurisdiction would preempt the court battles and settle the question legislatively.
What happened at the CFTC prediction market roundtable?
CME Group Chairman Terry Duffy and Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara clashed over whether prediction markets face the same regulatory scrutiny as established exchanges. Duffy called prediction market operators “carnival barkers” and mocked Kalshi’s hot dog eating contest contract. Lara challenged CME’s own history with market manipulation.
What is a prediction market?
A prediction market lets users buy contracts that pay $1 if a specific event occurs and zero if it does not. The contract price implies the market’s estimated probability of the event. Platforms like Kalshi, Polymarket, and Myriad offer contracts on everything from Bitcoin prices to elections to weather events.
Is Kalshi legal?
Kalshi holds a CFTC registration as a designated contract market, making it legal under federal law. However, multiple states have challenged its legality under state gambling laws. New York has sued for $36 billion in damages, and a Washington judge ordered Kalshi to stop operating in the state.
Why is CME Group opposed to prediction markets?
CME Group operates the world’s largest futures exchange and sees prediction markets as a competitive threat that operates under lighter regulatory oversight. CME’s argument is that prediction markets should face the same compliance costs and standards as established derivatives exchanges.
What is the difference between prediction markets and gambling?
The regulatory distinction depends on whether the contracts serve a “price discovery” function (derivatives) or are primarily entertainment-based wagering (gambling). Courts and regulators have not agreed on where the line falls, which is why the same contracts are legal under federal law and potentially illegal under some state laws.
How many prediction market users lose money?
A U.S. survey published Aug. 12, 2026, by BadCredit.org found that 79% of prediction market users lost money in the past year. Fifty-one percent used borrowed funds to participate.
Could prediction markets be regulated as insurance?
Prediction market contracts on real-world events are structurally similar to insurance contracts, but neither the industry nor regulators have pursued this classification. Insurance regulation is state-level and more restrictive than either the derivatives or gambling frameworks.
Will Congress address prediction market regulation?
The CLARITY Act does not directly address prediction markets. No separate legislation targeting event contract jurisdiction has been introduced. The regulatory question is more likely to be resolved by courts than by Congress. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Always conduct your own research. Published Aug. 21, 2026.
