US prediction markets — regulated landscape
CFTC-regulated DCM exchanges, DCO clearinghouses, FCM and IB intermediaries, and the front-end brands routing through them — plus the emerging SEC-regulated securities-based event contracts track. Current as of May 2026.
Exchange and clearinghouse structure: where trading actually happens
Each platform routes through a CFTC-registered Designated Contract Market (DCM). The Derivatives Clearing Organization (DCO) clears the trades. A Futures Commission Merchant (FCM) intermediates customer access (where applicable).
KalshiEX LLC
DCM — designated 2020 · self-clears via affiliate Kalshi Klear (DCO, Aug 2024)
Front-ends routing through KalshiEX:
Crypto.com | Derivatives North America (CDNA)
DCM + DCO (formerly Nadex) · DCM amended Sep 2025 for margined products · full FCM/DCM/DCO stack · Robinhood has equity following Sep 2026 partnership
Front-ends routing through CDNA:
QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US
DCM — designated Jul 2025 · DCO affiliate QC Clearing · acquired by Polymarket for $112M
Front-ends routing through QCX:
Gemini Titan d/b/a Gemini Predictions
DCM — designated Dec 2025 · DCO affiliate Gemini Olympus
Front-ends routing through QCX:
Other live DCMs hosting prediction-market contracts
Each is its own DCM; clearing arrangement noted per row
Operating under CFTC no-action letter
Not DCMs — historical exemptions from intermediation/registration requirements
SEC-regulated prediction markets (securities-based event contracts)
Two distinct SEC tracks: (A) pure securities path on full national securities exchanges, and (B) Section 6(g) notice registration by CFTC contract markets, producing genuine dual SEC/CFTC regulation
Track A · Pure securities path (options on securities or securities indices)
Listed on SEC-registered national securities exchanges, not CFTC DCMs · structured as options on securities or securities indices · rest on the Shad-Johnson securities-option exclusion from CFTC jurisdiction (CEA § 2(a)(1)(C)(i)(I), with the SEC-exempted-security exception at (i)(II)) and on the parallel carve-out of securities options from the “swap” definition (CEA § 1a(47)(B)(iii)) · cleared by OCC (dual SEC/CFTC-registered SIFMU) · new underlying classes require a Section 19(b) rule filing, public comment, and an SEC order
Track B · Section 6(g) notice registration (dual SEC/CFTC regulation of security futures products)
CEA § 2(a)(1)(C)(iv) otherwise bars futures on an individual security, so the security-future carve-out is the only door to single-name exposure · CFTC-designated contract markets file Form 1-N to register as national securities exchanges solely for security futures products under Exchange Act § 6(g) · registration is effective contemporaneously with submission, with no SEC review, comment period, or approval order · scope limited to futures on single securities and narrow-based indices (plus options on such futures) and futures on exempted securities or broad-based indices · conditioned on remaining a CFTC DCM in active status and not serving as a marketplace for other securities · product listing runs through CFTC self-certification under CEA § 5c(c), which is what makes the rule change effective under Exchange Act § 19(b)(7), subject only to SEC summary abrogation · cleared by the venue’s own DCO, not OCC · Exchange Act antifraud and insider-trading provisions reach the products, and intermediaries must be dual registered (FCM plus notice-registered broker-dealer)
Why this matters: The landscape is trifurcating, not bifurcating. Track 1 is CFTC-only event contracts (Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, et al., facing state-gambling-law preemption litigation). Track 2 is the pure securities path (Cboe, prospectively Nasdaq and MEMX), which rests on more settled securities-law preemption but moves at Section 19(b) speed: Cboe asked for all non-broad-based indices in April 2026 and came out in July with exactly one. Track 3, opened Sep 8, 2026, is the dual path, and it is the speed arbitrage: a one-page notice effective on submission plus CFTC self-certification gets Kalshi, Coinbase Derivatives and Bitnomial to individual stocks, while Cboe cannot list a cash-settled single-stock binary at all because § 2(a)(1)(C)(i)(I) keeps securities options on the SEC side of the line and only a Section 19(b) order can add the class. The cost of Track 3 is two regulators, Exchange Act liability attaching to the products, and dual-registered intermediaries.
This exact wrapper has been tried before and failed. OneChicago (CME, Cboe, Interactive Brokers) and NQLX (Nasdaq, LIFFE) both took Section 6(g) notice registration in 2001 and began trading Nov 2002. NQLX closed Dec 2004. OneChicago discontinued all trading Sep 2020.
Pending or announced
Upcoming prediction markets via CFTC DCM designation; not operational yet
Pursuing own DCM / DCO
Front-ends planning to route via existing DCMs
Front-end intermediation status: how customers actually reach the market
Three legal pathways have emerged for prediction-market front-ends: full FCM registration (holds customer funds), IB registration (solicits orders, routes funds to an FCM), or unregistered “technology partner” arrangements (the DCM is the registered party). The IB route is the fastest-growing on-ramp for sports-betting and DFS operators.
Registered FCMs intermediating prediction-market contracts
Hold customer funds, accept orders, route to one or more DCMs · NFA members · subject to CFTC 17 CFR Part 1 rules
Pending FCM applications: FanDuel (standalone New Ventures III entity), ICE Derivatives Execution Services LLC, Fliff FCM LLC, Onyx Markets LLC (Onyx Odds).
Adjacent in-flight: Coinbase agreed to acquire The Clearing Company in Dec 2025 (CFTC DCO application pending); once approved, Coinbase will hold an FCM plus its own DCO, materially reducing Kalshi-dependence.
Registered Introducing Brokers intermediating prediction-market contracts
Solicit orders and route them through an FCM for execution and clearing on a DCM · do not hold customer funds · NFA members · bound by NFA Compliance Rule 2-29 advertising restrictions
Pending IB applications: DAZN (Sports Marketing 1 LLC, filed Apr 2026, partnered with Polymarket / ADI Predictstreet) · Predictor LLC (Galactic — powers SI Predict and TIME prediction markets; IB + swap firm application filed Nov 2025) · Gains.com (sweepstakes platform) · Taild Sports Inc (affiliated with Chalkboard) · RealTime Fantasy Sports Inc · Starr Futures · Gains Predictions · Chronos Markets & Trading · Ratus AI · eToro USA Futures LLC · Signal Markets LLC.
Pattern: The IB route has emerged as the preferred on-ramp for sports-betting, DFS, and content-brand operators that want to plug into someone else’s DCM without the years-long DCM/DCO build or the higher capital and segregated-funds burden of full FCM status.
Technology partners (no NFA registration)
White-label arrangement — customer is the DCM’s customer; front-end provides only the app/UX layer. No customer funds held by the front-end · no NFA membership · DCM bears all CFTC obligations · not directly bound by NFA Rule 2-29 (though the DCM/FCM that “directly benefits” from the promotion is)
Recently transitioned out of this category: Underdog (now FCM, Jan 2026), DraftKings Predictions (now IB via Gus III LLC, Dec 2025), Fanatics Markets (now IB via Paragon and FCM via Morton St). The unregistered tech-partner pathway is increasingly viewed as transitional — operators serious about scale are moving to FCM or IB registration.
Direct DCM brands (the exchange itself)
Customer-facing app operated by the DCM under its own registration · the brand the customer sees is the same legal entity that holds the DCM license · no intermediary in the stack
Operator-owned DCMs fronted by a separate consumer brand
DCM license owned by an operator that markets to customers under a different brand and routes order flow through a separate FCM or IB entity · the DCM itself has no live consumer-facing app under its own name
The IB vs FCM vs tech-partner choice
FCMs hold customer funds and execute trades; IBs do not hold funds but solicit orders and route them to an FCM that holds the account. Both are NFA members bound by NFA Compliance Rule 2-29’s advertising and promotional-material restrictions. Tech partners hold no funds, take no orders, and are not NFA members — the DCM is the CFTC-overseen party that bears the regulatory obligations. The current regulatory trajectory — DraftKings, Fanatics, and Underdog all upgrading from tech-partner to IB or FCM status within the past year — suggests the tech-partner pathway is now treated as a starter chassis, not a permanent home.
