Các quỹ ETF thị trường dự đoán đầu tiên tạm hoãn niêm yết, Phố Wall đang theo dõi mảng kinh doanh này

Original by Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author: Asher (@Asher_0210)

The first batch of prediction market ETFs did not launch in the U.S. market as originally planned.

Earlier this month, due to the U.S. SEC stepping in for further review, the first batch of ETF products related to prediction markets failed to take effect as scheduled, and their launch date was forced to be postponed. The SEC required issuers to supplement product mechanics and disclosure details, particularly regarding how such products track event contracts, how they manage settlement risks, and how to explain potential extreme losses to ordinary investors.

Nearing the Effective Date, the U.S. SEC Hits Pause

Prediction market ETFs are not new products that suddenly emerged this month. In February this year, Roundhill Investments took the lead in submitting related filings, followed by Bitwise Asset Management and GraniteShares. The approach of several issuers is similar: packaging real-world event outcomes into ETF products, allowing investors to trade event probabilities through traditional securities accounts.

The first batch of products initially focused on U.S. political events, including which party (Democrat or Republican) would win the 2028 presidential election, and the control of the Senate and House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections. Subsequently, the scope of applications expanded to event-driven targets such as economic recession, tech industry layoffs, and commodity prices, with over 20 products pending review.

According to relevant rules, such ETFs can typically become effective automatically 75 days after filing, unless the SEC intervenes for further review. Precisely because multiple issuers filed in February, early May became a critical time point for the first prediction market ETFs. Roundhill previously submitted updated documents, planning for its six prediction market ETFs centered on the U.S. presidential and congressional elections to take effect on May 5. The market initially expected Roundhill to become the first issuer to launch prediction market ETFs, with similar products from Bitwise and GraniteShares potentially following suit.

Ultimately, due to the U.S. SEC's intervention for further review, the first batch of products did not achieve automatic effectiveness.

Delays Are "Not a Fatal Issue," but Enter a More Detailed Review Phase

From the U.S. SEC's current actions, prediction market ETFs seem more likely to be asked for supplementary explanations rather than being outright rejected.

If regulators believed such products should not exist at all, the market would likely see a clearer signal of negation. But the current SEC moves resemble requiring issuers to clarify several issues, including how the product gains exposure to event contracts, how the underlying prices are formed, how event outcomes are settled, the potential losses investors might incur, and whether the disclosure documents are sufficiently straightforward.

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas posted on platform X, stating that the SEC's decision to further review prediction market ETFs currently looks more like regulators wanting an extra review of the disclosure documents. Given the groundbreaking nature of this product type, its approval would set an important regulatory precedent for prediction market ETFs, making it understandable for the SEC to take more time for review.

The SEC's caution stems from the fact that prediction market ETFs are fundamentally different from traditional ETFs. Ordinary sector ETFs buy a basket of stocks, thematic ETFs buy a specific industry narrative, and Bitcoin ETFs track an asset price. But prediction market ETFs do not buy an asset; they buy whether a specific event will occur. Whether Democrats win the 2028 presidential election, whether Republicans control the Senate, whether the U.S. enters a recession, or whether the tech industry sees mass layoffs – these are not traditional assets but real-world events.

The unique aspect of prediction market ETFs is that they look like ETFs, but their underlying assets are closer to binary event contracts. When ordinary investors see them in their brokerage accounts, they might mistake them for ordinary thematic funds. However, they are not trading a stock basket or an asset price, but the final outcome of an event. If a wrong prediction is made, the loss can be very direct, even approaching zero. The SEC's request for supplementary disclosure might be to ensure issuers can clearly explain this structure and its risks.

The Launch Window Remains; Rules Are Key

Although the launch of prediction market ETFs has been delayed, the market currently tends to interpret this postponement as a supplementary review rather than a regulatory shift towards rejection. The ETF Store President Nate Geraci offered a relatively optimistic assessment. He noted that U.S. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce recently mentioned in a speech that regulators are trying to balance regulation and innovation. Nate Geraci believes this statement might be related to prediction market ETFs and stated that such products could be launched soon.

Currently, institutions might need to focus on whether the U.S. SEC classifies this delay as a disclosure issue or a product attribute issue. However, regardless of which review path the SEC ultimately prefers, it is difficult for the prediction market ETF narrative to disappear due to a single delay.

If the issue remains at the disclosure level, the first batch of products might simply launch a bit later; if regulators continue to question the product's attributes, the pace will slow down, but it will also force the industry to form clearer rules. For issuers, once the disclosure standards, settlement requirements, and investor protection boundaries are gradually clarified, subsequent products will actually be easier to replicate.

More importantly, institutions have already begun designing products at different levels around prediction markets. Directly tracking outcomes of events like elections, recessions, and layoffs is one line; investing in prediction market platforms, trading infrastructure, market makers, and data service providers is another line. Even if the review cycle for outcome-based ETFs lengthens, prediction markets, as a financial theme, have already been included in the product libraries of ETF issuers. In other words, Wall Street is not just waiting for a few election ETFs to be approved; it is betting in advance on the new business opportunity that "future events can also be traded."