As prediction markets evolve from niche forecasting tools into a multibillion-dollar mainstream asset class, the boundary between trading and high-volume iGaming infrastructure is rapidly dissolving. This Q&A feature w/ Jeevan Jeyaratnam, Chief Betting Officer at Abelson Sports examines whether prediction platforms can sustain their exponential growth independently, or if their long-term survival depends on adopting rigorous compliance, product proposition and geolocation standards of the established iGaming supply chain.

Are prediction markets a threat to the existing sports betting industry in the US and beyond, or can both coexist peacefully and profitably?

The answer to that question very much depends on where in the world you are. If I live in Birmingham, Alabama then prediction markets (PMs) are my only legal route to placing any kind of sportsbook wager. If I live in Birmingham, England then prediction markets (or as the Europeans understand them, betting exchanges) are very much playing second fiddle to the currently available, advanced sportsbook apps.

At present, prediction markets and legal sports betting firms, in the US, are operating on an uneven playing ground. Sportsbooks are state-regulated entities with tightly enforced rules, high tax rates and limited geographical scope. Prediction markets – in my opinion, because of their connection to the federal government’s coffers – have been given almost carte blanche to operate across state lines with no consideration for state legislative independence.

Governed by the federally controlled Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), prediction markets are able to offer sports contracts as well as other financial products to players in California, Georgia, New York and Texas. Sportsbooks, using this four-state example, can only offer sports betting opportunities to those in New York and that comes with a hefty 51% tax rate. The disparity here is stark and it is no wonder that investors and financiers believe that Predictions Markets have an opportunity to outperform sports betting operators. The problem of quite how PMs can fully monetise the product is beginning to be resolved with commission fees now being charged. How PMs can keep customers engaged is another concern, as there will be very few recreational winners from the pool of sharps that are seeding and trading these markets.

Given the current regulatory landscape, how can providers help platforms navigate the legal minefield of jurisdictions?

There’s a certain frontier spirit, certainly in the USA, around PMs at the moment. Platforms seem to be navigating with a “do it and apologise later” attitude, which has led to several high-profile lawsuits. Depending on where you look, the PMs or CFTC are either suing the state or vice versa.

It is a mess and as Congresswomen Dina Titus (D-NV) pointed out in an open letter recently, “Equally concerning is the allocation of agency resources to support this expanding litigation campaign.” Her point being that the CFTC is significantly understaffed and under resourced and that its efforts to support “multi-state litigation threatens to undermine the agency’s ability to fulfil its primary mandate.”

More recently, it would seem that the two biggest names, Kalshi and Polymarket, have decided that public slanging matches, where accusations around facilitating nefarious characters and criminal enterprises to trade on their platforms, fly either way.

This is hardly the type of behaviour anyone would expect from two companies operating within the auspices of the CFTC.

Until the situation settles and given the widespread support at federal level, it’s hard to imagine either of the two main players needing to take too much advice from others.

Following recent high-profile controversies around insider trading on prediction platforms, what sportsbook-grade KYC and behavioural monitoring tools are most effective at detecting the misuse of information?

One of the big concerns, currently not adequately addressed, revolves around KYC. Kalshi, for example, by way of its regulated status with the CFTC, has a strict KYC and AML code and a clear list of prohibited territories on its site.

Polymarket, on the other hand, is a crypto-native decentralised operator and as such has far fewer hurdles to jump as regards KYC. The USA site is now covered by CFTC regulation and is considered separate to the international version, which doesn’t require mandatory ID requirements to set up an account. This has led to significant and justified concerns over insider trading and AML. There are a number of tried and tested solutions that betting operators are required to use, but the same will also be true for PMs and the specific set of requirements they need to fulfil. For the sportsbooks that are also launching PMs, it would make synergistic sense for them utilise the same tools they have for the sportsbook.

What sort of retention strategies can be borrowed from the betting sector to increase engagement for prediction market operators?

The biggest hurdle for PMs is how they handle the inevitable churn as recreational players realise that they are consistently losing money to the big trading houses and sharp market makers. Only a fraction of customers can win and a small concentration of sharp clients will mop up pools, especially in sports contracts.

In other political or business markets there will be individuals or syndicates operating with the benefit of insider knowledge. Currently, the PMs product isn’t comparable in entertainment value to that of the sportsbooks. No concessions, no bonuses or many of the entertainment value add-ons that sportsbooks have adopted.

PMs have provided means for many who otherwise would have to use offshore books to experience wagering and they have done this at a very low transactional cost to the end user. That model will need to change if these firms are to meet their lofty valuations, but how they do that, while convincing customers that they can beat the sharps remains to be seen.