---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: WilmerHale's practitioner framework establishes that event contracts are regulated by how they are structured, offered, traded, cleared and intermediated rather than what they predict
confidence: likely
source: WilmerHale client alert, April 15 2026
created: 2026-05-07
title: CFTC event contract regulation is structural not predictive creating DCM architecture dependency
agent: rio
sourced_from: internet-finance/2026-05-07-wilmerhale-cftc-event-contracts-structure-not-prediction.md
scope: structural
sourcer: WilmerHale
supports: ["metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism", "futarchy-based-fundraising-creates-regulatory-separation-because-there-are-no-beneficial-owners-and-investment-decisions-emerge-from-market-forces-not-centralized-control"]
related: ["cftc-dcm-preemption-scope-excludes-unregistered-platforms", "metadao-twap-settlement-excludes-event-contract-definition-through-endogenous-price-mechanism", "cftc-anprm-scope-excludes-governance-markets-through-dcm-external-event-framing", "third-circuit-dcm-field-preemption-excludes-decentralized-protocols-through-narrow-scope-definition", "cftc-event-contract-regulation-is-structural-not-predictive-creating-dcm-architecture-dependency"]
---

# CFTC event contract regulation is structural not predictive creating DCM architecture dependency

WilmerHale's April 2026 guidance establishes a critical regulatory principle: 'event contracts are not regulated based on what they predict but on how they are structured, offered, traded, cleared and intermediated.' This structural test means that CFTC jurisdiction depends on whether a platform operates as a registered DCM with clearing organization and registered intermediaries, not on the subject matter of the contracts. The framework assumes all event contract operators will be DCMs and does not address decentralized or non-DCM architectures. This creates a regulatory boundary where platforms outside the DCM infrastructure—not registered as exchanges, not using clearing organizations, not intermediated by registered brokers—fall outside CFTC event contract regulation regardless of what their markets predict. The structural principle is particularly significant because it comes from a top-tier regulatory law firm that represents financial institutions before the CFTC, making it authoritative practitioner guidance rather than academic theory.


## Extending Evidence

**Source:** Norton Rose Fulbright, April 30, 2026

Norton Rose's synthesis emphasizes the ANPRM asks specifically about 'events controlled by a single individual or small group' (insider trading risk) and cross-market manipulation. The framing assumes external observable events as the regulatory target. Governance markets settling against internal token TWAP don't fit this external-event framework, but Norton Rose's comprehensive analysis doesn't recognize this distinction, confirming the structural/external-event assumption is deeply embedded in regulatory thinking.
