Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal has expressed serious concerns about a recent proposal by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that seeks to ban certain event contracts.
This proposed rule has made cryptocurrency exchanges and prediction market stakeholders anxious, and so Coinbase has duly filed a comment to make the CFTC reconsider its stance. The company stated that the proposal was likely to suppress development in prediction markets which have recorded growth in recent past.
Coinbase Calls for a Balanced Regulatory Approach
In a post on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, Grewal articulated his discontent regarding the CFTC’s proposed rulemaking. He emphasized that adopting the current proposal would result in the banning of numerous prediction contracts without adequate justification. Grewal stated the detrimental effects this could have on contracts tied to significant events such as the Nobel Prizes and the Oscars.
Grewal pointed out a critical flaw, stating, “Simply put, the proposal has a definition problem.” Coinbase’s official response mirrors this sentiment, supporting the CFTC’s mission to maintain integrity in U.S. derivatives markets while criticizing the broad definition of “gaming” included in the proposed rule. According to Coinbase, this definition is overreaching and could unintentionally eliminate economically viable contracts that traditionally wouldn’t be categorized as gambling.
“We urge the Commission to withdraw this Proposal and instead adopt an approach that aligns with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the Commission’s mission to foster innovation in U.S. markets,” Grewal wrote in a formal letter to the CFTC. This response highlights the growing tension surrounding prediction markets in the United States, especially amid increasing scrutiny of platforms like Polymarket, which focus on political events.
Adding to this debate, a group of leading Democrat lawmakers, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, have called for the CFTC to prohibit gambling related to election outcomes, citing concerns about the potential influence of such markets on democratic processes. Such developments further intensify the discussion surrounding the future of prediction markets and their role in American economic and political life.
Industry Unity Against CFTC’s Proposal
In a show of solidarity, Coinbase is not alone in its opposition to the CFTC’s proposal. Dragonfly Digital Management and Crypto.com have also joined the effort to contest the agency’s new regulations surrounding prediction markets. Both companies argue that the proposal to restrict contracts linked to political events unjustifiably categorizes them alongside traditional gambling activities.
Jessica Furr and Bryan Edelman, representatives from Dragonfly, contend that political event contracts should not be equated with gambling on games of chance like the Super Bowl. They argue that elections have significant economic consequences and that these contracts are essential for hedging risks. They also emphasize that prediction markets can provide valuable predictive data that benefits the public.
Arguments Against Regulatory Overreach
Dragonfly’s objections extend to the regulatory process itself, asserting that the CFTC is attempting to implement a blanket ban without fully allowing room for these markets to thrive. With a recent Supreme Court ruling that limits the agency’s power without Congressional approval, they believe that the CFTC’s actions represent a serious overreach.
Crypto.com’s Steve Humenik echoed these sentiments, asserting that the CFTC’s proposed changes violate the rulemaking framework established by the CEA. He stated that the CFTC must follow a three-part process before banning any contract: first, determining whether the contract concerns an excluded commodity; second, examining if it engages in specified activities; and third, assessing whether it serves the public interest. Humenik insisted that comprehensive justification should accompany any determination about a contract being associated with an excluded commodity.
Distinguishing Gambling from Speculation
Both Humenik and Grewal argued against rushing the regulatory process. Grewal’s remarks emphasized that the CFTC’s current proposal and its all-or-nothing approach contradict the promotion of responsible innovation and growth in regulated markets. He stated, “We firmly believe that this all-or-nothing approach to the treatment of event contracts is inconsistent with the aim of fostering responsible innovation and growth within regulated, transparent markets that include appropriate safeguards.”
During the discussion, Coinbase traced the difference between gambling and speculation, stating that the CFTC seeks to classify contracts concerning political races, awards, or sports as ‘gaming. ’ Grewal supported this assertion by pointing out that the CFTC’s definition of ‘gaming’ is unreasonable and not supported by the legislative history of the agency. For instance, Grewal gave an example of a vendor developing goods associated with a championship team. If that vendor decides to keep risk at bay by assuming an opposite position in that team, he assumed, this is not gambling but good business sense. However, if the CFTC’s proposed regulations were adopted in such a way, such legitimate business practices could be categorized as similar to gambling. During these discussions, stakeholders are claiming for a better and fairer approach where certain contracts are separated from others as the speculative element from the economic insight ones including measures that would help protect the market from manipulation.
