Brazil’s National Monetary Council Resolution 5.298 marks a clear regulatory boundary for prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi.

In this analysis, Carlos Akira Sato examines how the measure reflects a deeper shift in Brazil’s financial architecture, redefining what qualifies as a legitimate financial instrument and setting limits on the financialisation of non-economic events.

Carlos Akira Sato is co-founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and a specialist in regulated markets, financial infrastructure and responsible gambling.

In this op-ed, he argues that Brazil’s Resolution 5.298 is less about banning Polymarket and Kalshi than about defining the boundaries of the next generation of the financial system.

Brazil’s National Monetary Council Resolution 5.298 sets an unambiguous limit for platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi in the country. The conclusion is straightforward: these models no longer find regulatory space in Brazil. But the significance of the decision lies not in the prohibition itself,  it lies in what it reveals about the future of financial architecture.

Resolution 5.298 does not explicitly address prediction markets. It operates at a deeper level, redefining what can be considered a legitimate financial instrument. By requiring that contracts be tied to economic variables with objective price formation, the regulator eliminates the possibility of structuring instruments, however sophisticated in appearance, based on political, social or behavioural events. This is not a peripheral adjustment. It is a conceptual repositioning.

For years, platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi thrived precisely on ambiguity. They are not traditional bookmakers, nor do they fit neatly as derivatives exchanges. They operate in an intermediate territory,  contracts based on probabilities, financial language and an implicit promise of efficient price discovery about the future. That grey zone was always their main asset, and their greatest regulatory risk. What Brazil has now done is eliminate it.

The most sophisticated aspect of the resolution lies in its design. The CMN did not target the technology, the format of the platforms, or their location. It targeted the essence: the nature of the risk being traded. In doing so, it made irrelevant whether the operation occurs through bilateral contracts, offshore platforms or blockchain-based protocols. If the risk is not economic, the contract is not admissible. It is a form of regulation that privileges substance over form — and is, for that reason, likely to prove more resilient.

This decision projects effects well beyond the gambling debate. It speaks directly to the discussion around tokenisation and the widely held idea in recent years that any event could be converted into a digital asset. Brazil signals the opposite. Innovation is welcome, but not unlimited. Tokenisation finds legitimacy when anchored in the real economy, credit, receivables, productive assets, and loses it when it attempts to capture behaviour, opinion or social events as the basis for trading.

It is at this point that the resolution also reveals an institutional tension. The normative text itself assigns to the CVM the responsibility of issuing complementary regulation. The choice is legally understandable, but institutionally questionable.

If the regulator’s own diagnosis recognises that these are hybrid instruments, moving between derivatives, securities and fundraising structures, the absence of a joint initiative from the outset is notable. The option for sequential regulation, with the CMN setting guidelines and the CVM filling in the detail, introduces a lag that may temporarily reopen the very grey zone it intends to close.

The paradox is evident. The resolution is sophisticated in attacking the economic essence of contracts, but fragments regulatory execution by distributing competencies non-simultaneously.

In an environment where financial innovation occurs at the intersection of different regimes, banking, capital markets and, in certain cases, gambling, coordination ceases to be desirable and becomes necessary. The lack of synchrony may generate divergent interpretations, legal uncertainty and, above all, residual arbitrage opportunities.

Even so, the core of the decision remains solid. By restricting what can be considered a financial asset, Brazil establishes a silent but powerful limit on the financialisation of reality. Not every event can be turned into a contract. Not every expectation can be converted into a price. And not everything that can be tokenised should necessarily be traded.

To say that Polymarket and Kalshi cannot operate in Brazil is therefore correct, but it is only the surface. What is at stake is the definition of boundaries for the next generation of the financial system. A system that will continue to incorporate technology and innovation, but that, at least in the Brazilian case, will remain anchored in the real economy. And in that process, the quality of coordination between regulators will be as decisive as the clarity of the rules themselves.

Carlos Akira Sato is co-founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and a specialist in regulated markets, financial infrastructure and responsible gambling. In this op-ed, he argues that Brazil’s Resolution 5.298 is less about banning Polymarket and Kalshi than about defining the boundaries of the next generation of the financial system.

Las Vegas Sands has reported the financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2026.

“We continued to execute our strategic objectives during the quarter as we delivered growth in both Singapore and Macao while continuing to increase the return of capital to shareholders,” said Patrick Dumont, chairman and chief executive officer.

“Looking ahead, we remain confident that our people, our products and our focus on delivering outstanding service, hospitality and entertainment experiences to our customers will drive growth for the company and deliver strong returns to our shareholders in the years ahead.”

Net revenue was $3.59 billion, compared to $2.86 billion in the prior year quarter. Operating income was $904 million, compared to $609 million in the prior year quarter. Net income in the first quarter of 2026 was $641 million, compared to $408 million in the first quarter of 2025.

Consolidated adjusted property EBITDA was $1.42 billion, compared to $1.14 billion in the prior year quarter.

Sands China Ltd. Consolidated Financial Results

On a GAAP basis, total net revenues for SCL increased 23.6% to $2.10 billion, compared to the first quarter of 2025. Net income for SCL increased 45.5% to $294 million, compared to $202 million in the first quarter of 2025.

Other Factors Affecting Earnings

Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized, was $188 million for the first quarter of 2026, compared to $174 million in the prior year quarter. The weighted average debt balance was $16.0 billion during the first quarter of 2026, compared to $13.86 billion during the first quarter of 2025. The weighted average borrowing cost was 4.6% during the first quarter of 2026, compared to 4.9% during the first quarter of 2025.

The effective income tax rate for the first quarter of 2026 was 14.3%, compared to 13.4% in the prior year quarter. The income tax rate for the first quarter of 2026 was primarily driven by a 17% statutory rate on the Singapore operations.

Stockholder Returns

“During the first quarter of 2026, we repurchased $740 million of our common stock (approximately 13 million shares at a weighted average price of $56.64). The remaining amount authorized under our share repurchase program was $817 million as of March 31, 2026. Since the resumption of our share repurchase program in the fourth quarter of 2023 through March 31, 2026, we have repurchased 14.3% of our outstanding shares, approximately 109 million shares of our common stock at an average price of $47.95, for a total investment of $5.24 billion. The timing and actual number of shares to be repurchased in the future will depend on a variety of factors, including the company’s financial position, earnings, legal requirements, other investment opportunities and market conditions,” the Company reported.

Michigan commercial and tribal operators reported a combined $372.1 million in internet gaming (iGaming) and online sports betting gross receipts in March, an 18.9% increase from February 2026.

Monthly Gross Receipts

March iGaming gross receipts totaled $322.1 million, the highest to date. The previous high was $315.8 million recorded in December 2025. March online sports betting gross receipts reached $50.0 million.

Monthly Adjusted Gross Receipts

Combined adjusted gross receipts (AGR) totaled $341.8 million for March, including $309.1 million from iGaming and $32.7 million from online sports betting.

Compared with February 2026, iGaming AGR increased 17.9% and online sports betting AGR rose 28.6%. Year-over-year, iGaming AGR was up 25.6%, while online sports betting AGR increased by $18.1 million.

Monthly Handle

Online sports betting handle totaled $485.1 million, a 26.1% increase from February 2026.

Monthly State Taxes and Payments

Operators submitted $66.4 million in taxes and payments to the State of Michigan in March, including:

• iGaming taxes and fees: $64.1 million

• Online sports betting taxes and fees: $2.3 million

Monthly City of Detroit Taxes and Payments

The three Detroit casinos reported $16.1 million in wagering taxes and municipal services fees paid to the City of Detroit in March, including:

• iGaming taxes and fees: $15.4 million

• Online sports betting taxes and fees: $684,547

Monthly Tribal Operators’ Payments

Tribal operators reported $8.2 million in payments to governing bodies in March.

Additional Information

A revenue distribution table for online gaming and sports betting is available on the agency’s website.

As of March 2026, 15 commercial and tribal operators have been authorized to offer iGaming and/or online sports betting in Michigan. Of those, 12 operators offer online sports betting, while all 15 offer iGaming. Detailed results by operator are available on the MGCB website.