Prediction markets have recently become a hot topic of public debate. On January 10th, a discussion about regulation of prediction markets was sparked in the U.S. political arena—30 politicians, including former House Speaker, are pushing a new bill that would prohibit elected officials from engaging in political-related trades on prediction markets.

All of this stems from a shocking incident: last year, someone placed a bet on Polymarket regarding the political situation of Venezuela's former President Maduro, with a single bet profit of up to $400,000. This large wager immediately triggered questions about "insider trading"—who had what information to be so confident?

Following this, New York State Assemblyman Richie Torres officially submitted the "2026 Financial Prediction Market Public Integrity Act" last Friday. The core of this bill is straightforward: politicians cannot bet on politics in prediction markets. It appears to close a loophole, but it also reflects the issue of information asymmetry in the political application of prediction markets.

Prediction markets are supposed to be price discovery mechanisms, but when politicians become traders, the fairness of the market is compromised. This is also one of the reasons why global crypto markets are under close regulatory scrutiny—not because the technology itself is flawed, but because the application scenarios require clearer rules of the game.