Hyperliquid and Multicoin Push CFTC Toward One Prediction Market Rulebook

The joint filing backs federal oversight but asks the CFTC to clarify settlement tests and publish its reasoning after every contract review.

The Hyperliquid Policy Center and Multicoin Capital submitted a joint comment to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on July 27th.

They expressed support for the agency’s proposed prediction market framework but also pressed for two changes that could affect how on-chain event contracts are designed and approved.

The filing is a direct response to the CFTC’s “Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations” proposal published earlier in June. It aims to amend Regulation 40.11 and seeks to establish a 90-day process for reviewing event contracts that may involve gaming, war, terrorism, assassination, or other activities listed in the Commodity Exchange Act, among other things.

HPC and Multicoin called the plan a “clear and well-reasoned framework.” They argued that prediction markets belong under the CFTC’s exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The letter also states that regulating prediction markets on a state level, creating “fifty separate state regimes,” would fragment national derivatives markets.

Prediction markets topped $50 billion in trading volume last month, and the biggest names in traditional finance are moving in.

Today, with @multicoin, we filed a joint comment supporting the @CFTC ‘s proposed prediction markets framework.

These markets have grown up. The… https://t.co/pYG4mevmbT

— Hyperliquid Policy Center (@HyperliquidPC) July 27, 2026

Settlement: Key Regulatory Test

The first concern that the group outlines is related to the use of one word in the Commodity Exchange Act: “involve.” Under the statute’s rule, the CFTC can review contracts that involve certain listed activities and prohibit them when they are contrary to the public interest.

You may also like:

The letter supports an interpretation focused on settlement. Instead of treating trading itself as gaming, regulators would have to examine the event that determines the payout. A contract would fall within the special rule when settlement directly turns on illegal activity, not merely because buying it resembles placing a wager.

In addition, the group asked for more examples. Edge cases may include certain contracts with several potential paths to settlement or products that reference a sensitive activity only indirectly. Clear illustrations would help exchanges and developers assess regulatory exposure before having to commit resources to a launch.

Transparency Could Become a Competitive Requirement

The second recommendation concerns what happens after a review under Regulation 40.11. Under the current proposal, the CFTC would publish written findings when it blocks a contract and explain how that particular decision fits with earlier findings.

HPC and Multicoin argue that this could create an information gap: an approval, including by inaction, can reveal as much about the regulatory boundaries as a prohibition. Without any public reasoning, other platforms may repeat the same legal work, seek guidance, or avoid products that could have been permissible.

In any case, it’s interesting to follow developments surrounding the letter and whether the CFTC would adopt the two requested changes. This could be a signal that regulators are actively listening to industry experts and attempt to legislate in a way that’s both fair to anyone involved.