European regulators have clearly demarcated the territory of prediction markets by scrutinizing two large platforms very closely. The European Securities and Markets Authority stated that Polymarket and Kalshi do not have the necessary authorization for selling and marketing event contracts in the EU. It has triggered discussion on how blockchain-based forecasting could fit into financial regulations in the EU.
This statement is the most direct intervention at the EU level on the rapidly growing event-contract economy, where crypto-native platforms and regulated U.S. exchanges are after the same users and liquidity.
Table of Contents
Authorization Gap and Weak Geo-Blocking
ESMA highlighted that the platforms were offering event contracts to EU retail investors without either a MiFID II investment firm license or equivalent authorization. When contracts can be traded through binary options or derivatives they are considered financial instruments.
Source: European Union
The regulator said both platforms are still allowing some EU countries’ traders to use their services but not all. And, ESMA cast doubt on whether IP-based blocks and VPN controls have been effective.
Also Read: Polymarket Perpetual Trading Launches With 20x Leverage for International Users
How Prediction Platforms Operate
Polymarket operates through decentralized conditional token contracts and is built on Polygon with settlement in USDC, whereas Kalshi, regulated by CFTC, the U.S. commodities futures regulatory agency, is a designated contract market.
Source: Reuters
Neither is EU client soliciting permitted to them. Dune Analytics data showed that Polymarket handled more than $3.2 billion in volume during the 2024 U.S. election cycle, because of this, highlighting the mainstream demand for on-chain prediction markets and bringing both market makers and stablecoin liquidity.
Also Read: Polymarket Blocked in South Korea Over Gambling Concerns
Implications for Investors, Exchanges, and Blockchain Ecosystems
The warning covers different stakeholders. For EUR investors, it means that access might be limited, and it makes them worried about things like leverage, settlement finality, and protection.
For exchanges and brokers, it makes them reiterate that providing event contracts in the EU without permission will lead to enforcement by MiFID II and the Market Abuse Regulation. As for developers and ecosystems, in particular those in Polygon, it is a regulatory issue that shows what can occur for the frontend/oracle risk.
Also Read: ESMA Hits 309 Licensed Crypto Firms in Major EU Win
Growing Regulatory Pressure
This type of situation might mean similar scrutiny of protocols such as Azuro and Drift. Legal uncertainty now in Europe poses a risk for institutions that have used event contracts for hedges against CPI or Federal Reserve decision prints, and this will make them more cautious about managing their risks. ESMA’s position coincides with the worldwide crackdown on event contracts.
Source: Global Business and Finance Magazine
In the US, the CFTC is still going back and forth for whether certain political contracts should be classified as wagering. Meanwhile, the growth in Kalshi has made it pretty hard to distinguish between the nature of derivatives and that of betting/wagering. In the EU, regulatory enforcement will be handed over to national regulators like BaFin, AMF, and AFM.
Also Read: JPMorgan Ends Polymarket Banking Relationship Over Regulatory Concerns
Future Compliance and Market Fragmentation Ahead
Possible next moves might involve issuing investor warnings, imposing cease-and-desist orders, and enforcing the requirement of robust geoblocking linked to KYC processes. Platforms planning to access the EU market must either be an authorised EU investment company or be MiFID II conduct compliant; they must also comply with MiCA if stablecoins are used for settlement.
Source: Laika AI
This case will mainly determine the possibility of effective restriction with decentralized access and the fragmentation of the predictive market into areas with and without regulations that because of this will affect different aspects of DeFi and traditional banking through changes in liquidity.
