首批預測市場 ETF 暫緩上線，華爾街正盯著這門生意

Original | 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 intervening for further review, the first batch of ETF products related to prediction markets failed to take effect as scheduled, and their listing was forced to be postponed. The SEC required issuers to supplement details regarding the product mechanism and disclosures, particularly how such products track event contracts, how they handle settlement risks, and how to explain potential extreme losses to ordinary investors.

Just Before the Effective Date, the SEC Hit Pause

Prediction market ETFs are not new products that suddenly appeared this month. In February this year, Roundhill Investments was the first to submit relevant documents, 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 whether the Democratic or Republican Party 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 usually take effect automatically after 75 days of submission, unless the SEC intervenes for further review. It is precisely because multiple issuers filed documents in February that early May became the key time point for the first batch of prediction market ETFs. Roundhill previously submitted updated documents, planning for its 6 prediction market ETFs centered around the U.S. presidential and congressional elections to take effect on May 5. The market had originally 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 SEC's intervention for further review, the first batch of products did not see automatic effectiveness.

The Delay "Is Not a Fatal Problem" but Enters a Phase of More Detailed Scrutiny

Judging by the SEC's current actions, prediction market ETFs seem to be required to provide supplementary explanations rather than being directly rejected.

If the regulator believed such products should not exist, the market would likely see a clearer sign of rejection. But currently, the SEC's actions more closely resemble asking issuers to clarify several issues, including how the products gain exposure to event contracts, how the underlying prices are formed, how event outcomes are settled, how much loss investors might bear, and whether the disclosure documents are sufficiently straightforward.

Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas posted on the X platform, stating that the SEC's decision to further review prediction market ETFs currently appears to be more about the regulator wanting to conduct an additional review of the disclosure documents. Given the pioneering nature of these products, approval would set an important regulatory precedent for prediction market ETFs. It is understandable that the SEC is taking more time to review them.

The SEC's caution stems from the fact that prediction market ETFs are not the same type of product as traditional ETFs. Ordinary sector ETFs buy a basket of stocks, thematic ETFs buy a specific industry narrative, and Bitcoin ETFs track an asset's price. However, prediction market ETFs do not buy an asset; they buy the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event. Whether the Democrats win the 2028 presidential election, whether the Republicans control the Senate, whether the U.S. enters a recession, 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. An ordinary investor seeing this in their brokerage account might mistake it for a regular thematic fund, but it doesn't trade a basket of stocks or an asset price; it trades whether a specific event will ultimately happen. Guessing wrong could lead to very direct losses, potentially near zero. The SEC's request for supplemental disclosures may be aimed at confirming whether issuers can clearly explain this structure and its associated risks.

The Launch Window Remains Open; Rules are Key

Although the launch date of prediction market ETFs has been postponed, the market currently leans more towards interpreting this delay as a supplemental review, rather than the regulatory pendulum swinging towards rejection. Nate Geraci, President of The ETF Store, offered a relatively optimistic assessment. He noted that U.S. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce recently mentioned in a speech that regulators are trying to find a balance between regulation and innovation. Nate Geraci believes this statement might be related to prediction market ETFs and suggests that such products could be launched soon.

Currently, institutions might need to focus on whether the SEC characterizes this delay as a disclosure issue or a product attribute issue. However, regardless of which review path the SEC ultimately takes, it will be difficult for the prediction market ETF trend to disappear due to a single delay.

If the issue remains at the disclosure level, the first batch of products might only be delayed slightly. If the regulator continues to scrutinize the product attributes, the pace will slow down, but this will also force the industry to form clearer rules. For issuers, as long as 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. One track directly tracks the outcomes of events like elections, recessions, and layoffs; another track invests in prediction market platforms, trading infrastructure, market makers, and data service providers. Even if the review cycle for event-outcome ETFs lengthens, the prediction market, as a financial theme, has already been entered into 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 making an early bet on the new business line that "future events can also be traded."