By Chris Prentice and Jason Lange
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) – Most Americans oppose using prediction markets to bet on US elections and other government actions, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll that suggests the booming markets may lack broad public support as policymakers debate how to regulate them.
The rapidly growing prediction market industry led by Polymarket and Kalshi allows people to bet on a raft of events, including US elections, government policy moves and sports games, raising concerns among policymakers that the platforms are opening up new avenues for insider trading and manipulation.
The companies say they have extensive controls to guard against misconduct, that their markets are often better at forecasting outcomes than traditional polls, and that they offer unique ways to hedge a range of esoteric real-world risks.
Yet a bipartisan majority of Americans is opposed to using prediction markets to bet on US elections, military actions and government policy announcements or decisions, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted September 30 through October 5.
Some 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans said they opposed using prediction markets to bet on election results.
Sixty-five percent of Americans opposed prediction market betting on US military actions and 63% opposed betting on government policy announcements or decisions, suggesting broad bipartisan discomfort with wagering on government affairs. Only 8% and 9%, respectively, supported such bets.
The results shed more light on popular attitudes toward the nascent industry, which is marketing heavily on social media and TV even as it faces pushback from states and from Democratic lawmakers who argue the markets are unethical, socially corrosive and could undermine national security.
“Everyone should make their own decisions about their lives,” said Ronna Schmoker, 72, a Democrat from a Dallas suburb who participated in the poll. “But like anything, you have to have guardrails.”
A Polymarket spokesperson said Americans don’t trust traditional information sources and that prediction markets help provide unbiased, accurate information.
“It’s why more than 90% of visits to Polymarket are to view markets, not to trade,” the spokesperson said. “Recognition of the public value of prediction markets is growing, but they’re still brand new to most, and it’s going to take some time for the public to learn more and see the real value.”
NATIONAL SECURITY AND ELECTION FEARS HAVE STOKED DEBATE
Some policymakers worry that prediction markets, which offer thousands of ways to wager on the US midterms, could undermine faith in the integrity of US democracy and enable government insiders to broadcast confidential information via their trades.
Reuters reported in August that more than 150 accounts on Polymarket International, the company’s overseas market which bars US users, may have traded on inside military information, while Kalshi has suspended candidates for betting on their own races.
Kalshi banned former Republican congressman George Santos, who agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve government allegations of manipulative trading after he bet via Kalshi on whether he would attend the State of the Union address. Santos did not admit to the allegations and said through his attorney that he never intended to deceive anyone.
Ninety-three percent of Democrats and 89% of Republicans said it was inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events, while 6% and 8%, respectively, said it was appropriate.
Polymarket and Kalshi say they work closely with the authorities and routinely refer suspicious accounts, and have introduced various restrictions to mitigate misconduct.
Kalshi says it does not allow trading on military operations and bars political candidates from wagering on their own races. The Senate in April barred senators, staff and other officers from using prediction markets, and several Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to restrict the industry.
“We see prediction markets everywhere, but don’t mistake seeing millions of dollars in advertisements as a sign of growing support,” said Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “Folks are rightfully concerned.”
The Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests many Americans are generally uneasy about increasingly commoditizing real-world events. Even betting on professional sports, a far more established activity, was opposed by 43% of respondents, while 29% supported it.
“I just don’t think it’s good for a society to bet on whether things will turn out a certain way,” said Michael Clark, a 48-year-old conservative who lives outside Dallas and participated in the poll.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS SUPPORTED INDUSTRY GROWTH
The administration of President Donald Trump, whose son Donald Trump Jr. has business ties to Kalshi and Polymarket, is pursuing federal regulations for the industry, a move states are fighting. Legal experts expect that dispute to reach the Supreme Court.
At issue is whether prediction markets facilitate trading in financial instruments or gambling, which is regulated by the states. State regulators say they are facilitating gambling and should be subject to more stringent state laws, while Trump’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asserted jurisdiction, arguing the contracts are a type of financial product it regulates.
“By that rationale, MGM (Resorts) owns dozens of financial markets,” said Glenn Rishton, a 76-year-old Republican poll respondent in Gulfport, Mississippi, referring to the casino company. “It’s effectively gambling.”
Three-quarters of Americans agreed, with only 8% saying using prediction markets to wager on the outcome of real-world events is not a form of gambling.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted online and nationwide, surveyed 4,506 US adults and had a margin of error of about two percentage points.
“Prediction markets should have the same level of regulations as gambling,” said Janessa Manning, 48, a Democrat in Detroit. “Even though they pretend they aren’t gambling, they are.”
(Reporting by Chris Prentice and Jason Lange; Additional reporting by Douglas Gillison in Washington; editing by Michelle Price, Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)
Comments