The Dutch Gaming Authority (Ksa) thought it had closed the book on crypto-native prediction markets when it sent Polymarket packing in February 2026. However, as any gambler, or “financial contract enthusiast”, knows, the house always finds a way. Despite the official ban, platforms like Kalshi, Hyperliquid, and Interactive Brokers are still actively serving Dutch users, according to a recent investigation by the financial newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad (FD).
Targeting the Eredivisie
While Polymarket was sanctioned for operating without a gambling license, its competitors are leaning into jurisdictional gray areas. Kalshi, the US-regulated heavyweight, has reportedly been aggressively courting Dutch interest by offering markets on the Eredivisie football league and previous national elections. Meanwhile, Hyperliquid, which operates as a decentralized blockchain platform, recently expanded its prediction offerings to the Netherlands, relying on its permissionless architecture to bypass traditional gatekeepers.
The Ksa has issued a stern warning: similar websites are under their supervision and will be sanctioned. Yet, enforcement remains a digital game of whac-a-mole. The regulator’s spokesperson emphasized that the Polymarket ban was not an isolated incident but a precedent for the entire category, stating that any platform offering similar betting mechanics falls under their direct oversight.
The Financial Contract Defense
Perhaps the most intriguing strategy comes from Interactive Brokers. The investment giant frames its prediction products not as gambling, but as legitimate financial contracts overseen by the Central Bank of Ireland. However, this defense hit a snag this week when the Irish central bank told the FD it had no knowledge of such an arrangement, referring questions back to the Irish gambling authority.
This jurisdictional “shell game” is part of a broader global conflict. In the United States, a federal-versus-state battle is reaching a fever pitch. The CFTC has filed lawsuits against five states, including New York, Illinois, and Wisconsin, arguing they overstepped by attempting to regulate markets that fall under federal jurisdiction. Venture capital firm a16z has sided with the federal position, claiming that state-level blocks conflict with the “impartial access” required for healthy markets.
A High-Stakes Game with Low Odds
While the platforms argue over legality, the statistics for users are sobering. Research from the London Business School published in April 2026 found that only 3% of prediction market participants make consistent profits, while nearly 70% lose money.
Compounding these losses is the persistent specter of insider trading. Suspicions reached a boiling point after anonymous traders correctly bet on high-sensitivity events, including the US attack on Iran and the attempted kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. As Brazil, France, and Singapore move to block these “shadow casinos,” the industry finds itself at a crossroads: either prove its utility as an “information aggregator” or risk being regulated out of existence by authorities tired of the semantic gymnastics.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
