61% of Americans Call Prediction Markets Gambling: 2025 Poll
A new national poll by AIBM and Ipsos reveals a striking disconnect in how Americans perceive prediction markets: 61% label event contracts as gambling, yet 41% of respondents have already tried to profit from them. With only 21% of Americans reporting familiarity with prediction markets and regulatory agencies still debating jurisdiction, the industry sits at a critical crossroads that will define its legal and commercial future.
AIBM Ipsos Poll: 61% of Americans Classify Event Contracts as Gambling
The Core Perception Gap Between Gambling and Investing
The AIBM Ipsos survey, conducted in 2025, asked a nationally representative sample of American adults how they categorize event contracts traded on prediction markets. The result was unambiguous: 61% said gambling, and only 8% said investing [1]. That 53-percentage-point gap between the two classifications signals a deep public skepticism that no amount of platform rebranding has yet overcome.
What makes this finding particularly striking is the behavioral data sitting alongside it. Even though 61% frame these products as gambling, 41% of respondents reported using prediction markets specifically to try and make money [1]. Americans are participating in something they largely distrust, which suggests that the profit motive overrides classification concerns for a significant share of the population.
The gap between perception and participation is the central tension regulators must resolve. If most users already treat prediction markets like gambling in practice, the case for applying gambling-style consumer protections becomes difficult to argue against. Bridging that gap requires either a shift in public education or a formal regulatory framework that clarifies what these products actually are.
Who Is Actually Familiar With Prediction Markets?
Familiarity numbers from the same poll underscore how early-stage this market remains in the public consciousness. Only 21% of respondents described themselves as “somewhat familiar” with prediction markets, compared to 35% who said the same about sportsbooks [1]. That 14-point familiarity gap matters enormously for market growth projections and regulatory urgency alike.
Sportsbooks have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, sponsorships, and state-level lobbying to build brand recognition since the Supreme Court’s 2018 Murphy v. NCAA ruling opened the door to legal sports betting. Prediction markets have no equivalent marketing infrastructure, which partly explains the awareness deficit. Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket have gained traction among financially sophisticated users, but mainstream penetration remains limited.
Low familiarity cuts both ways for the industry. It means the public has not yet formed hardened negative opinions, leaving room for narrative shaping. But it also means that the first major scandal or high-profile loss could permanently anchor the gambling label in public perception before the industry has a chance to make its investing case.
Regulatory Crossfire: 59% Want Gambling Rules, 52% Want Financial Oversight
Overlapping Regulatory Preferences Create a Policy Dilemma
The poll’s regulatory findings reveal an unusual situation: majorities simultaneously favor two different regulatory frameworks. According to the AIBM Ipsos data, 59% of respondents favor treating prediction markets like gambling entities, while 52% prefer regulation similar to financial services firms [1]. The overlap is not a contradiction. Many respondents likely support both, reflecting a desire for comprehensive oversight rather than a preference for one regime over another.
This dual-majority finding puts federal agencies in an uncomfortable position. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has historically claimed jurisdiction over event contracts as derivatives, while state gambling regulators argue these products fall squarely within their purview. In 2023, the CFTC rejected Kalshi’s application to list congressional election contracts, a decision Kalshi successfully challenged in federal court in 2024, forcing the CFTC to allow the contracts while the legal battle continued.
The insider trading confidence data adds another layer of concern. Only 9% of all respondents expressed certainty that prediction markets can prevent insider trading [1]. That near-total lack of confidence in market integrity is the single most damaging finding for the industry’s investing narrative. No asset class can credibly position itself as an investment vehicle when fewer than 1 in 10 people believe it can police information asymmetry.
The Insider Trading Problem and Market Integrity
The 9% confidence figure on insider trading prevention is not irrational skepticism. Prediction markets by design aggregate information from participants who may possess non-public knowledge, whether about political decisions, corporate outcomes, or geopolitical events. Unlike equity markets, which operate under SEC Rule 10b-5 and decades of enforcement precedent, prediction markets have no established insider trading prohibition framework specific to event contracts [2].
Platforms like Polymarket, which operates offshore and primarily serves crypto-native users, faced scrutiny in 2024 after large, well-timed trades on the U.S. presidential election raised questions about whether participants had advance information. No enforcement action followed, but the episode illustrated exactly the vulnerability the poll respondents identified. Until a clear legal standard defines what constitutes insider trading on an event contract, the 9% certainty figure will not move.
Prediction Markets vs. Sportsbooks: A 2025 Familiarity and Perception Comparison
| Metric | Prediction Markets | Sportsbooks |
|---|---|---|
| Public Familiarity (“somewhat familiar”) | 21% | 35% |
| Classified as Gambling | 61% | Broadly accepted as gambling |
| Regulatory Framework (existing) | Contested (CFTC vs. state) | State-level gambling licenses |
| Users Trying to Make Money | 41% | Majority of bettors |
| Insider Trading Protections | 9% confident they exist | Match-fixing rules apply |
The comparison table above illustrates why prediction markets occupy such an awkward regulatory space. Sportsbooks arrived in the U.S. market with a ready-made legal template: state licensing, age verification, responsible gambling mandates, and anti-match-fixing agreements with sports leagues. Prediction markets arrived with none of that infrastructure and a product that superficially resembles both a futures contract and a sports bet depending on the underlying event [2].
Kalshi, founded in 2018 and regulated by the CFTC as a designated contract market, represents the financial services model. Polymarket, launched in 2020 and built on the Polygon blockchain, represents the crypto-native decentralized model. PredictIt, operated by Victoria University of Wellington under a CFTC no-action letter, represents an academic research model that the CFTC tried to terminate in 2022 before reversing course under legal pressure. Three platforms, three regulatory postures, zero consensus.
The 2024 U.S. presidential election cycle accelerated mainstream attention to prediction markets, with Polymarket recording over $3.5 billion in trading volume on the election alone, according to data cited by multiple financial publications. That volume figure, combined with the poll’s finding that 41% of users are motivated by profit, makes the current regulatory vacuum increasingly difficult to justify [1].
The familiarity gap between prediction markets and sportsbooks will likely narrow as election cycles and major news events drive media coverage. But familiarity without a clear regulatory framework could accelerate the gambling classification rather than the investing one, particularly if high-profile losses or fraud cases emerge before Congress acts.
What This Means for Crypto and Blockchain Finance Participants
The prediction markets debate is directly relevant to the crypto and blockchain finance sector because the most active prediction market platforms, including Polymarket and Augur, operate on blockchain infrastructure and settle in cryptocurrency. Polymarket runs on Polygon and uses USDC for settlement, meaning every trade is a crypto transaction subject to the same wallet, custody, and tax reporting considerations as any other on-chain activity.
If regulators ultimately classify event contracts as gambling products, blockchain-based prediction markets face the same licensing and geofencing requirements that have forced crypto exchanges to restrict U.S. users. Polymarket already blocks U.S. IP addresses following a 2022 CFTC enforcement action that resulted in a $1.4 million settlement, a direct precedent for what gambling classification could mean at scale [2]. Crypto investors holding positions on decentralized prediction markets should monitor the CFTC’s rulemaking calendar and any Congressional action on event contracts closely, as a formal gambling classification would create immediate compliance obligations for platform operators and potential tax treatment changes for users.
The insider trading confidence gap, at only 9%, also resonates with crypto market participants who have long debated information asymmetry in token markets. The structural parallels between trading on non-public information in prediction markets and front-running in DeFi protocols are not lost on regulators, and any new framework for event contracts will likely inform how agencies approach on-chain information asymmetry more broadly.
Key Takeaways
- 61% of Americans classify prediction market event contracts as gambling, versus only 8% who see them as investing, according to the 2025 AIBM Ipsos poll [1].
- 41% of poll respondents have used prediction markets to try to make money, revealing a wide gap between perception and participation [1].
- Only 21% of Americans are somewhat familiar with prediction markets, compared to 35% for sportsbooks, indicating significant room for public education or reputational risk [1].
- 59% of respondents favor gambling-style regulation for prediction markets, while 52% simultaneously support financial services-style oversight, creating overlapping regulatory mandates [1].
- Only 9% of all respondents are certain that prediction markets can prevent insider trading, the lowest confidence figure in the entire survey [1].
- Polymarket, built on the Polygon blockchain, recorded over $3.5 billion in trading volume on the 2024 U.S. presidential election, illustrating the scale at stake in any regulatory decision.
- The CFTC, state gambling regulators, and Congress have yet to reach consensus on jurisdiction, leaving platforms, users, and investors in legal uncertainty heading into 2025 and beyond.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are prediction markets legal in the United States?
Prediction markets occupy a contested legal space in the U.S. Kalshi operates as a CFTC-regulated designated contract market, making it legal at the federal level. Polymarket settled with the CFTC in 2022 for $1.4 million and now blocks U.S. users. State-level legality varies, and no federal law explicitly authorizes or prohibits event contracts as a category [2].
What is the difference between prediction markets and sports betting?
Sports betting involves wagering on athletic outcomes and is regulated at the state level under gambling licenses following the 2018 Murphy v. NCAA Supreme Court ruling. Prediction markets cover a broader range of events including elections, economic indicators, and geopolitical outcomes, and are claimed by the CFTC as derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act. The 2025 AIBM Ipsos poll found sportsbooks have 35% public familiarity versus 21% for prediction markets [1].
How do prediction markets prevent insider trading?
Currently, no established legal framework specifically prohibits insider trading on event contracts. The CFTC’s anti-manipulation rules apply to designated contract markets like Kalshi, but enforcement precedent is thin. The 2025 AIBM Ipsos poll found only 9% of Americans are certain that prediction markets can prevent insider trading, reflecting widespread skepticism about market integrity [1].
What is the AIBM Ipsos prediction market poll?
The AIBM Ipsos poll is a 2025 nationally representative survey of American adults examining public perceptions of prediction markets, including how respondents classify event contracts, their familiarity with the platforms, regulatory preferences, and confidence in market integrity. Key findings include 61% classifying prediction markets as gambling and 41% reporting personal use for profit [1].
The Bottom Line
The AIBM Ipsos poll delivers a clear message to prediction market operators, regulators, and investors: the public has already made up its mind, and the verdict is gambling. With 61% of Americans applying that label and only 9% confident in insider trading protections, the industry faces a credibility deficit that cannot be resolved through marketing alone [1]. The regulatory window for establishing prediction markets as a legitimate financial product is open, but it will not stay open indefinitely.
Congress and the CFTC face a genuine policy choice. They can build a financial services framework that addresses the insider trading gap, mandates transparency, and gives prediction markets a credible investing identity. Or they can allow the gambling classification to harden through inaction, pushing platforms offshore and into the crypto-native decentralized space where enforcement becomes exponentially harder. The 2024 election cycle proved these markets move real money and real information. The 2025 regulatory debate will determine whether that activity happens inside or outside U.S. legal boundaries.
The most important number in this entire poll may not be 61% or even 9%. It may be 41%: the share of Americans already using these platforms to make money, regardless of what they call them. Behavior has outpaced regulation, and the longer that gap persists, the more disruptive the eventual reckoning will be.
Want the Full Data on Prediction Market Regulation?
18+ | Play Responsibly | T&Cs Apply
Sources
- Casino.org – AIBM Ipsos poll data: 61% gambling classification, 8% investing, 41% profit use, 21% familiarity, 59%/52% regulatory preferences, 9% insider trading confidence
- GamblingNews.com – Regulatory context for prediction markets including CFTC jurisdiction, Polymarket enforcement action, and platform legal status
