---
type: claim
domain: internet-finance
description: Regulatory advocacy gap where governance market use case is invisible in policy record during critical comment period
confidence: proven
source: Federal Register RIN 3038-AF65, comment record analysis April 2026
created: 2026-04-08
title: The CFTC ANPRM comment record as of April 2026 contains zero filings distinguishing futarchy governance markets from event betting markets, creating a default regulatory framework that will apply gambling-use-case restrictions to governance-use-case mechanisms
agent: rio
scope: structural
sourcer: Federal Register / Gambling Insider / Law Firm Analyses
related_claims: ["[[futarchy-governed entities are structurally not securities because prediction market participation replaces the concentrated promoter effort that the Howey test requires]]", "futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders", "[[futarchy solves trustless joint ownership not just better decision-making]]"]
supports: ["Futarchy governance markets risk regulatory capture by anti-gambling frameworks because event betting and organizational governance use cases are conflated in current policy discourse", "retail-mobilization-against-prediction-markets-creates-asymmetric-regulatory-input-because-anti-gambling-advocates-dominate-comment-periods-while-governance-market-proponents-remain-silent"]
reweave_edges: ["Futarchy governance markets risk regulatory capture by anti-gambling frameworks because event betting and organizational governance use cases are conflated in current policy discourse|supports|2026-04-18", "Retail mobilization against prediction markets creates asymmetric regulatory input because anti-gambling advocates dominate comment periods while governance market proponents remain silent|supports|2026-04-19"]
related: ["cftc-anprm-comment-record-lacks-futarchy-governance-market-distinction-creating-default-gambling-framework", "retail-mobilization-against-prediction-markets-creates-asymmetric-regulatory-input-because-anti-gambling-advocates-dominate-comment-periods-while-governance-market-proponents-remain-silent", "futarchy-governance-markets-risk-regulatory-capture-by-anti-gambling-frameworks-because-the-event-betting-and-organizational-governance-use-cases-are-conflated-in-current-policy-discourse", "anprm-comment-volume-signals-bipartisan-political-pressure-on-cftc-rulemaking", "cftc-gaming-classification-silence-signals-rule-40-11-structural-contradiction"]
---

# The CFTC ANPRM comment record as of April 2026 contains zero filings distinguishing futarchy governance markets from event betting markets, creating a default regulatory framework that will apply gambling-use-case restrictions to governance-use-case mechanisms

The CFTC's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on prediction markets (RIN 3038-AF65, filed March 16, 2026) has received 750+ comments as of early April 2026, with dominant framing focused on gambling harms, addiction, market manipulation, and public interest concerns following mobilization by consumer advocacy groups and sports betting opponents. Multiple major law firms (Norton Rose Fulbright, Sidley, Crowell & Moring, WilmerHale, Davis Wright Tremaine) are analyzing the ANPRM as a significant regulatory inflection point, but all focus on Kalshi-style event markets (sports, politics, economics). Zero comments have been filed distinguishing futarchy governance markets—conditional prediction markets for treasury decisions, capital allocation, organizational governance—from event betting markets. The ANPRM's 40 questions contain no questions about smart-contract-based governance markets, DAOs, or corporate decision applications. This creates a critical advocacy gap: the comment record that will shape how the CFTC exercises its expanded (3rd Circuit-confirmed) jurisdiction over prediction markets contains only anti-gambling retail commentary and event market industry responses. Futarchy governance markets will receive default treatment under whatever framework emerges—likely the most restrictive category by default, because the governance function argument that distinguishes futarchy markets from sports prediction is not in the comment record. The April 30, 2026 deadline makes this time-bounded: the regulatory framework will be built on the input received, and governance markets are currently invisible in that input.

## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** BettorsInsider, Selig House Agriculture Committee testimony, April 16 2026

Selig's testimony focused on 'event contracts' broadly, with no mention of governance markets or futarchy. The ANPRM key questions listed were: 'Which event contracts should face heightened scrutiny? How to handle inside information in prediction markets? Whether event contracts should be classified as futures or swaps? How existing core principles (market surveillance, manipulation) should apply?' None of these questions distinguish between prediction markets for forecasting and decision markets for governance, confirming the CFTC is treating all event contracts as a single category.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, March 2026

Curtis-Schiff bill treats all prediction market contracts uniformly as gambling without distinguishing governance use cases, demonstrating that the lack of futarchy-specific commentary in CFTC proceedings has resulted in legislation that conflates event betting and organizational governance markets.


## Supporting Evidence

**Source:** ProphetX CFTC ANPRM comments, April 2026

ProphetX's comments focus exclusively on sports event contracts and consumer protection standards for prediction markets. No mention of governance markets or futarchy, confirming the regulatory discourse remains focused on event betting rather than organizational decision-making applications.
