The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has warned that insider trading rules apply to prediction markets, and David Miller, the agency’s enforcement director, said the regulator is watching the sector closely.
In remarks reported on March 31, 2026, Miller said there is a false belief on social media and in mainstream coverage that insider trading does not apply in prediction markets. He said that belief is wrong.
Stay ahead in the crypto world – follow us on X for the latest updates, insights, and trends!🚀
Miller also said the agency will not spend time on minor matters. Instead, the CFTC plans to focus on cases involving people who trade or tip others using misappropriated nonpublic information.
In the same remarks, he identified other core enforcement areas, including market abuse, spoofing, energy market manipulation, and anti money laundering violations.
The warning comes as prediction markets keep growing. TRM Labs said monthly transaction volume across prediction markets rose above $20 billion in January 2026, with more than 800,000 unique wallets active each month. That growth has pushed insider trading concerns into a larger policy debate in Washington and beyond.
CFTC Prediction Markets Face Direct Insider Trading Warning
David Miller delivered the message in his first public remarks since taking the enforcement post. He said the agency knows about the speculation around insider trading in prediction markets and is paying attention. He also made clear that the CFTC sees these contracts as financial instruments, not a legal gray zone outside market rules.
According to Reuters, Miller said the Commission’s position is that event contracts are swaps, not gaming products. That point matters because it places prediction markets inside the federal commodities framework the CFTC enforces.
As a result, the same basic insider trading logic can apply when traders use material nonpublic information.
Miller’s comments also narrowed the agency’s target. He said enforcement will focus on people who trade on misappropriated information or tip others to do so.
That means the warning was not framed as a broad crackdown on every unusual trade. Instead, it was directed at trades tied to inside knowledge and unlawful information misuse.
Prediction Market Insider Trading Cases Draw More Attention
The debate around prediction market insider trading has intensified after several well timed trades appeared before major government announcements.
A Reuters report highlighted trades tied to US tariff moves, Venezuela, Iran, and oil markets that raised questions because of their size and timing. Experts told Reuters those patterns deserved scrutiny, even if some trades could still reflect luck or strong analysis.
One of the examples involved an anonymous trader who reportedly made more than $400,000 by betting on the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Reuters also reported a $500 million oil futures trade placed shortly before President Donald Trump delayed military action on Iran. These cases added pressure on regulators to show whether existing market abuse rules can work in fast moving event based markets.
The issue has moved beyond trading circles and into public ethics concerns. Reuters reported that recent suspicious activity tied to markets on Iran and other geopolitical events raised national security questions.
That widened the debate from market fairness to the possible misuse of sensitive government information.
Kalshi, Polymarket, and New Bills Enter the Prediction Markets Fight
As scrutiny increased, leading platforms started tightening their own rules. The original report says Kalshi and Polymarket recently introduced new insider trading rules. That suggests platforms are trying to respond before regulators or lawmakers impose broader limits.
Lawmakers have also started pushing new measures. The article references the bipartisan Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026 and the PREDICT Act, both introduced in late March.
These proposals aim to curb trading based on inside information, especially by public officials and others with privileged access to government decisions.
Pressure is also hitting public employees directly. On March 27, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order barring state officials from using insider information to bet on prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi.
Reuters said the order covers gubernatorial appointees and bans them from profiting, or helping others profit, from nonpublic information in these markets.
Event Contracts Swaps Argument Shapes the CFTC Enforcement Path
A key part of this fight is the legal status of event contracts. Miller said the CFTC view is that these contracts are swaps. That point is central because some critics have argued that prediction markets look more like betting or gaming than regulated financial products.
If regulators continue to treat event contracts as swaps, then prediction platforms face a more direct federal enforcement path.
That would affect how insider trading, manipulation, and anti money laundering controls are applied. It would also make it harder for traders to argue that these markets sit outside standard financial misconduct rules.
For now, the CFTC has not announced public charges tied to the trades discussed in recent reports. Still, Miller’s remarks put the market on notice.
The agency’s message was plain: prediction markets are under watch, and trades tied to stolen or misused nonpublic information can bring enforcement action.
Tatevik Avetisyan is an editor at Kriptoworld who covers emerging crypto trends, blockchain innovation, and altcoin developments. She is passionate about breaking down complex stories for a global audience and making digital finance more accessible.
📅 Published: April 1, 2026 • 🕓 Last updated: April 1, 2026
Disclosure:This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
Kriptoworld.com accepts no liability for any errors in the articles or for any financial loss resulting from incorrect information.
