---
type: source
title: "CFTC Chairman Selig Testifies on Prediction Markets — ANPRM Comment Period Closes April 30, 800+ Submissions"
author: "Bettors Insider"
url: https://bettorsinsider.com/sports-betting/2026/04/17/the-cftc-chairman-just-testified-for-hours-on-prediction-markets-heres-what-proposed-rulemaking-actually-means/
date: 2026-04-17
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-24
priority: medium
tags: [cftc, anprm, prediction-markets, regulation, selig, rulemaking]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

CFTC Chairman Selig testified before Congress on prediction markets in April 2026. The ANPRM (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) published March 12, 2026 seeks public comment closing April 30, 2026.

**ANPRM scope:** Questions covering:
- Which event contract types should face heightened scrutiny
- How to handle inside information in prediction markets
- Whether event contracts should be classified as futures or swaps
- How core principles around market surveillance and manipulation apply to these platforms

**Comment period status:** 800+ submissions received from industry participants, academics, state gaming commissions, and tribal gaming commissions. No futarchy/governance market carve-out identified in any submission.

**What the ANPRM is NOT:** A final rule. It's a public information-gathering process to inform what a future rule might look like.

**Single-commissioner context (from prior research):** Chairman Selig is the only CFTC commissioner. All prediction market actions (ANPRM, amicus briefs, preemption assertions) have been taken by one person without bipartisan vetting. Future commissioners could reverse or modify the framework.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** Comment period closes in 6 days (April 30). No commenter — among 800+ submissions — has made the futarchy/governance market distinction. This is significant absence: the institutional prediction market industry does not see futarchy as a category worth carving out.

**What surprised me:** 800 submissions is a large comment volume for an ANPRM on a relatively niche regulatory question. The tribal gaming industry, state gaming commissions, and prediction market platforms are all well-represented. The absence of any Web3/futarchy voice is notable — the decentralized governance community appears to not recognize this as a fight that affects them.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any submission distinguishing decentralized on-chain prediction markets from CFTC-regulated DCM platforms. The entire 800-comment discussion is about centralized platforms (Kalshi, Polymarket, ProphetX).

**KB connections:**
- [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]] — the regulatory separation argument depends on CFTC recognizing a distinction between centralized prediction markets and decentralized futarchy. The ANPRM suggests CFTC doesn't make this distinction.
- [[AI autonomously managing investment capital is regulatory terra incognita because the SEC framework assumes human-controlled registered entities deploy AI as tools]] — similar terra incognita problem: CFTC's ANPRM also doesn't address AI-governed futures markets.

**Extraction hints:**
- Claim: "CFTC's 800+ submission ANPRM comment period produced no futarchy/governance market carve-out — the regulatory framework treats all event contracts as a unified category with no decentralization distinction"
- Note for extractor: This would extend/strengthen the existing claim about ANPRM non-distinction. Check whether the existing KB claim already covers this or if this provides new specificity (number of submissions, April 30 deadline).

**Context:** Single-commissioner governance risk is the meta-vulnerability here. If the only CFTC commissioner is Selig, and Selig's ANPRM produces a prediction market rule, that rule can be reversed by future bipartisan commissioners. The 800-comment record may actually help lock in the framework — it becomes harder to reverse after a substantial public process.

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[futarchy-based fundraising creates regulatory separation because there are no beneficial owners and investment decisions emerge from market forces not centralized control]]

WHY ARCHIVED: ANPRM status update with comment count; confirms no futarchy/governance carve-out in 800+ submissions; April 30 deadline is a process milestone

EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the absence finding — 800 submissions, zero futarchy/governance carve-out — and what this means for Belief #6's structural separation regulatory defensibility argument
