Are Prediction Markets the Future of iGaming, or Just a Passing Trend?

For years, prediction markets were a footnote. Economists studied them, a handful of political obsessives watched them on election night, and almost everyone else in gambling ignored them. Then, more or less overnight, they stopped being a footnote and became the headline. Money poured in, mainstream platforms launched them, and suddenly every operator wanted to know whether this was the next chapter of iGaming or a bubble that would pop the moment the novelty wore off.

The honest answer sits somewhere between the two extremes, and the numbers make the case hard to dismiss as a fad. Combined monthly trading volume on the two largest platforms, Kalshi and Polymarket, climbed from under 5 billion dollars in September 2025 to about 24 billion by April 2026, according to a Pew Research Center analysis, briefly overtaking the average monthly handle of every legal sportsbook in the United States combined. Growth like that is not a passing mood. But whether prediction markets belong to iGaming, to finance, or to some new category with one foot in each is a genuinely open question, and the regulatory answer is being written in courtrooms right now. This piece walks through what these markets are, why they exploded, and what an operator should weigh before treating them as the future.

What Prediction Markets Actually Are

Strip away the hype, and a prediction market is simple. It is an exchange where people buy and sell contracts tied to the outcome of a future event. Each contract pays out a fixed amount, usually one dollar, if the event happens, and nothing if it does not. Because the contract can never be worth more than a dollar or less than zero, its price naturally settles somewhere in between, and that price reads like a probability. A contract trading at 64 cents is the crowd saying there is roughly a 64 percent chance the thing happens.

That is the part people find genuinely interesting. The price is not a bookmaker’s opinion or a single analyst’s model. It is the aggregate bet of everyone in the market, with real money on the line, updating in real time as new information arrives. Economists have poked at this idea for a long time, and research by economists Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz found that market-generated forecasts are usually fairly accurate and tend to beat moderately sophisticated benchmarks, including many polls. The Iowa Electronic Markets, a small real-money exchange the University of Iowa has quietly run for research since 1988, has spent decades predicting election results, often more accurately than the polling averages, which is a useful reminder that none of this is new. What is new is the scale and the money.

The events on offer have broadened well beyond politics. Modern platforms list contracts on sports outcomes, economic data, award shows, the release dates of games and albums, geopolitical flashpoints, and pop culture. Some let users propose their own markets, which turns the audience into part of the product. The same mechanism that a hedge fund could use to price geopolitical risk is the one a casual user taps to bet on the Oscars, and that range is a big part of the appeal.

Why They Took Off

The spark was the 2024 US election. Prediction markets offered a running, money-backed forecast while the polls looked muddy, and they captured a huge amount of attention in the process. But attention alone fades. What kept the momentum going was that the activity did not collapse after the votes were counted the way election betting always had before. Volume stayed high and spread across sports, crypto, macroeconomics, and world events, which is the signature of something behaving like an asset class rather than a seasonal fad.

Part of the pull is that a prediction market feels different from a casino or a sportsbook, even when the underlying activity rhymes. A few things drive that:

• It reads like trading, not wagering. Users buy and sell shares that move with the news and can be cashed out before the event resolves, which frames the whole thing as an informed position rather than a locked-in bet. For a lot of people, that framing matters.
• The menu is enormous. Politics, sports, finance, and entertainment sit side by side, so the same platform serves the election-watcher and the person who wants a stake in a season finale.
• The community shapes it. When users can suggest and populate new markets, engagement compounds, and the platform starts to feel like a place rather than a betting slip.
• It carries a whiff of legitimacy. Institutional money has taken notice, and once serious capital treats a category as real, the category tends to become real.

That last point is worth sitting with. This is not fringe activity anymore. Major trading firms have started building desks around these markets, and the space has attracted the kind of investment that signals people expect it to last.

Where It Gets Complicated: The Regulatory Picture

Here is the catch that no operator can wave away. Nobody fully agrees on what a prediction market legally is. Is it a derivatives exchange, regulated like futures? Is it gambling, regulated by state gaming authorities? The answer changes the entire business, and right now it depends on where you are standing and which court ruled last.

In the United States, the fight has been vivid. As a Congressional Research Service overview explains, Kalshi operates as a federally regulated derivatives exchange. After it won a court challenge in late 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission dropped its opposition and prediction markets began offering sports contracts across the country. State regulators pushed back hard, sending cease and desist letters and arguing these are wagers that require a state gaming license. The resulting court decisions have split, with some siding with the platforms on federal preemption and others siding with the states. The CFTC has since moved toward formal rulemaking that would define which event contracts are allowed and which are not, so the ground is still shifting under everyone.

The international map is no simpler. Every jurisdiction draws the gambling line differently, and a product that is a compliant financial instrument in one place can be illegal betting in another. For an operator, the takeaway is not to pick a side in the debate. It is to accept that compliance here is unsettled, expensive, and specific to each market you enter, and to get real legal counsel before assuming a model that works in one country travels to the next.

Operational Risks Operators Underestimate

Beyond regulation, prediction markets carry practical risks that are easy to miss until they bite.

The first is liquidity. A prediction market is only useful if people can actually buy and sell without moving the price wildly, and a thin market with no traders on the other side is a dead market. This is why serious platforms lean on automated market makers, mechanisms that always stand ready to quote a price and take the other side of a trade so users are never stuck waiting for a counterparty. Getting that math right, so the market stays liquid without the operator bleeding money to subsidize it, is one of the harder problems in the entire build.

The second is manipulation. Because prices double as public probabilities, someone with inside knowledge or a large enough bankroll has an incentive to distort them. Insider trading is not a theoretical worry here. The CFTC has issued an enforcement advisory after cases involving misuse of nonpublic information, including a situation where a candidate appeared to trade on his own race, and leading platforms have rushed to add controls precisely because integrity is the whole value proposition. A market that can be gamed is a market nobody trusts.

Then there is scaling. Regulatory uncertainty, liquidity that has to be maintained across every new market, and the sheer complexity of the product make growth harder than it looks on a pitch deck. And there is branding. Looking like a financial exchange is a double-edged sword: it lends credibility, but it also blurs what you are and complicates how you market yourself, especially when regulators in one region call you an exchange and regulators in another call you a bookmaker.

If You Are Thinking About Building One

For operators tempted to enter the space, a few things separate the serious attempts from the ones that stall.

Understand the core mechanics before anything else. Liquidity management, contract design, settlement, and user security are not features you bolt on later. They are the foundation, and they are genuinely difficult, which is why teams often bring in partners who specialize in prediction market software development rather than reinventing the exchange from scratch. Building a trading venue is a different discipline from building a casino, and the gap shows fast.

Choose your event categories deliberately. Sports, politics, and entertainment reliably generate engagement and volume, but they also invite the most regulatory scrutiny, so weigh appetite against risk in each market you serve.

Start small and prove it. Rather than launching a sprawling platform, a lean minimum viable product lets you test the core experience, learn from real users, and expand from evidence instead of guesses, which keeps your launch costs and your regulatory exposure contained. At the same time, you find out what actually works.

Build in localization from the start. Local languages, regionally relevant events, and cultural context are not polish; they are what makes a multi-jurisdictional platform viable, and retrofitting them later is painful.

And take responsible operation seriously, not as a checkbox. Whatever the legal label, these products let people risk money on outcomes, and the consumer-protection questions do not disappear because the interface looks like a trading screen. Building in sensible limits and pointing users toward resources such as the National Council on Problem Gambling is both the decent thing to do and, increasingly, what regulators will expect.

Where This Is Heading

A few trends are already shaping the next few years. Prediction market mechanics are bleeding into traditional sportsbooks, and the line between placing a bet and trading a contract is getting blurry. Artificial intelligence is taking on more of the plumbing, from creating and pricing markets to spotting manipulation and managing liquidity. The whole experience is going mobile-first, built around real-time engagement on a phone. And as more jurisdictions settle on clearer rules, whichever direction those rules go, operators will at least be able to plan around them instead of guessing.

The institutional money is the tell that matters most. When large financial players and established brokerages start treating event contracts as a legitimate instrument, the category stops depending on hype to survive. That does not guarantee any single platform succeeds, but it strongly suggests the format is not going away.

So, Future or Fad?

Prediction markets are not a passing trend, at least not in the way skeptics mean it. The growth is too large, too broad, and too well-funded to write off, and the underlying idea, that a market of motivated participants can forecast the world, has decades of evidence behind it. They have already changed how a chunk of the audience thinks about betting, reframing it as trading a position rather than placing a wager.

But calling them the future of iGaming assumes they stay inside iGaming, and that is exactly the thing still being decided. They might end up regulated as finance, as gambling, or as a hybrid that borrows from both. For an operator, the smart posture is neither hype nor dismissal. It is to treat prediction markets as a real and durable opportunity that rewards the ones who manage liquidity well, protect market integrity, navigate a messy and shifting compliance landscape, and build with discipline. Get those right, and this is a lot more than a trend. Get them wrong, and it will not matter how promising the category was.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not provide legal, financial, investment, or gambling advice. Prediction markets involve financial risk, and laws vary by location. Always check local regulations and seek professional advice before participating.

References

• Radde, K. (2026, May 27). Trading volume on prediction markets has soared in recent months. Pew Research Center.
• Wolfers, J., and Zitzewitz, E. (2004). Prediction markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 107–126. DOI: 10.1257/0895330041371321.
• Wolfers, J., and Zitzewitz, E. (2006). Prediction markets in theory and practice. NBER Working Paper No. 12083. National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI: 10.3386/w12083.
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (2026). Understanding prediction markets and event contracts. Retrieved July 25, 2026.
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (2026, February 25). CFTC Enforcement Division issues prediction markets advisory. Release No. 9185-26.
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (2026, March 12). CFTC staff issues prediction markets advisory. Release No. 9193-26.
• Congressional Research Service. (2026, April 3). Prediction markets and insider trading law. Legal Sidebar LSB11406.
• Congressional Research Service. (2026, June 24). CFTC issues proposed rule regarding prediction markets. Legal Sidebar LSB11441.
• Lekwijit, S., and Sutivong, D. (2018). Optimizing the liquidity parameter of logarithmic market scoring rules prediction markets. Journal of Modelling in Management, 13(3), 736–754. DOI: 10.1108/JM2-06-2017-0066.
• Chakraborty, M., Das, S., and Peabody, J. (2015). Price evolution in a continuous double auction prediction market with a scoring-rule-based market maker. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29(1). DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9313.