Will comprehensive crypto market-structure legislation be enacted before 2028?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 43% YES / 57% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ A stablecoin bill already enacted established the template for splitting agency jurisdiction.
- ▸ The House passed a market-structure bill with 71 crossover votes last session.
- ▸ Industry political spending in 2026 primaries is the largest of any single sector.
- ▸ Senate Banking leadership has declined to schedule a markup for two consecutive years.
- ▸ Recent enforcement wins strengthen the case that existing law already suffices.
- ▸ Jurisdictional turf disputes between agriculture and banking committees remain unresolved.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if a statute assigning primary spot-market jurisdiction over digital assets to a federal regulator (CFTC, SEC, or a new body) is enacted before January 1, 2028. Stablecoin-only bills do not count.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Discussion · 267 comments
LiveCommittee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 51%. Holding YES at 38 entry.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (8.3K forecasters).
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 51%. Holding YES at 38 entry.
YES at 43% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
YES at 43% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
Fading the crowd here. "Senate Banking leadership has declined to schedule a markup for two consecutive years." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 33%.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.