Predictions, Validations

Major Validations

Four results anchor the program's public record.

The 81-day receipt. In April, MindCast filed a public comment on the CFTC's own docket arguing that the agency's failure to define "gaming" — the term at the center of its jurisdictional claims — was the weakness that would decide the nationwide litigation. Eighty-one days later, a federal judge in New York ruled against Kalshi on exactly that ground: the agency claims exclusive authority over a category of contracts no rule defines.

The 41-day rulemaking call. MindCast's April comment also urged the CFTC to move from preliminary study to an actual proposed rule defining "gaming." The agency published a 267-page proposed rule 41 days after the comment window closed, on the same docket, centered on the exact terms the comment identified.

The decisive-actor call. In May, MindCast forecast that the CFTC's pending rulemaking — not any court — held the most power to decide the war, and that state courts would produce the key rulings before any nationwide federal resolution. The proposed rule arrived nineteen days later, and state-court proceedings have produced every major merits development since.

The retired call, reported at the same size. MindCast had assumed federal courts would favor the platforms over the states. The July 7 ruling proved otherwise — a federal judge sided with state authority without hesitation — and MindCast retired the assumption rather than explaining it away. The lesson now carries the register forward: which court hears a case no longer predicts who wins it.

Major Outstanding Predictions

The forward book below is live. Each entry carries a confidence band and resolves against public court records and Commission filings.

• At least one more federal court decides a Kalshi case on the undefined "gaming" question by Q1 2027 (70–80%).
• The CFTC fails to finalize its "gaming" definition before the first appeals court rules on the merits (60–70%).
• At least three other courts cite the July 7 New York ruling as persuasive authority within six months (75–85%).
• States regulate prediction-market platforms through licensing requirements, taxes, and geolocation rules rather than outright bans, within twelve months (82–90%).
• A private class action seeking damages from Kalshi under federal commodities law survives a motion to dismiss within twelve months (60–70%).
• Most likely endgame: states win authority over sports-outcome contracts while the CFTC keeps economic contracts such as elections, rates, and commodities (50–60%).

Core Publications

The publications below carry the program's full analysis, in the order the campaign unfolded. Each summary states the paper's controlling contribution, so readers can choose a starting point without reading all of them.

Kalshi, the Ninth Circuit, and the Prediction Markets Forum Fight — In May 2026 the Ninth Circuit refused to pause three state enforcement actions against Kalshi while its appeals proceeded. The paper explains why those denials broke Kalshi's strategy of consolidating the war in favorable federal courts — and why the CFTC's rulemaking, not any court, will decide the outcome.

Kalshi's Institutional Push Is Building the Case Against Itself — Kalshi is building clearing, prime-brokerage, and block-trade infrastructure to attract institutional investors. The paper shows that the same infrastructure proves its contracts are financial derivatives — the exact characterization Kalshi spent two years fighting in court.

The CFTC NPRM Is a Litigation Brief — In June 2026 the CFTC proposed a rule defining which event contracts count as "gaming." The paper reads the 267-page proposal as a litigation document — a federal record built to win the preemption war in court — arriving 41 days after MindCast's public comment requested it.

CFTC Takes On Nine States — Kalshi, Prediction Markets, and the Federal-Plaintiff Phase — In 2026 the CFTC went on offense against nine states to stop them from regulating prediction markets — a campaign without precedent. The paper documents the full offensive and hosts the program's primary prediction registry, where every court ruling in the war is scored.

Prediction Markets and the Dual Nash-Stigler Trap — Kalshi, the states, and the CFTC are locked in a war none of them can end, because each actor's best available move keeps the litigation going. The paper explains the trap and estimates its cost: $1–2 billion a year pushed onto states, tribes, licensed operators, and investors.

How the CFTC's Missing "Gaming" Definition Is Losing the Kalshi Preemption War — On July 7, 2026, a federal judge in New York ruled against Kalshi through the exact vulnerability MindCast had filed with the CFTC eighty-one days earlier: the agency claims exclusive jurisdiction over "gaming" contracts but has never defined the term. The paper grades the program's full prediction record — including the one call the ruling refuted — and sets the forecasts for the appellate phase.

The same architecture can be purpose-built for a campaign your organization is tracking or party to.