James’ office described Kalshi’s event contracts as bets and said the platform takes wagers on professional and college sports, elections and culture. The lawsuit alleges Kalshi allows users aged 18 to 20 to wager and lists markets involving New York college teams, both prohibited for licensed sportsbooks in the state.

“New York’s gambling ⁠laws protect children from underage betting and help combat gambling addiction,” James said in the statement. “No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like ​Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple.”

The World Cup helped boost Kalshi’s numbers, adding 3 million during the course of the tournament, according to CNBC. That’s more than double the 2 million the firm said it had at the start of May.

According to the attorney general’s statement, the lawsuit follows an October cease-and-desist order from the New York State Gaming Commission.

A federal judge denied Kalshi’s bid to block state regulators on July 7 and rejected an injunction pending appeal on July 27.

CoinDesk approached Kalshi for comment outside of regular U.S. office hours, and had not heard back by publication time.

• Bybit’s new simulator previews both Dual Asset settlement outcomes clearly.
• Redesigned interface reduces steps needed to compare terms and place orders.
• VIP-tier products with enhanced APR rates open to all users every Friday.

Bybit said on Friday that it had upgraded its Dual Asset product with a new investment simulator, a simplified interface and broader access to products carrying VIP-tier annual percentage rates.

The Dubai-based company, which describes itself as the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, said the changes are intended to make the short-term structured investment product easier to understand and use.

Bybit Dual Asset is a non-principal-protected product that allows users to set a target price for buying or selling cryptocurrency.

Investors earn APR rewards on their principal at settlement, regardless of whether the selected target price is reached.

A simulator for settlement outcomes

The main addition is a simulator that lets users preview potential outcomes before placing an order. Traders can choose a token from a searchable list, enter their investment amount and select from the available durations.

The tool displays the two possible settlement scenarios side by side in a single illustration, giving users a clearer view of the product’s possible outcomes.

A “Match My Assets” filter also highlights coins based on a user’s existing holdings.

Bybit said this feature is designed to make product selection more efficient. Users can reach the simulator by switching on “Beginner Mode” under “Choose Product Plan”.

The company has also redesigned the wider Dual Asset interface. The updated layout reduces the number of steps needed to compare product terms and place an order.

VIP products open to all on Fridays

Bybit is also expanding access to Dual Asset products previously limited to VIP customers. Every Friday, all users will be able to access selected VIP-exclusive products with enhanced APR rates without holding a VIP membership.

The weekly access window extends the higher-rate offering to a broader section of the exchange’s user base while retaining the existing product structure.

Bybit said users can earn a competitive yield when a target trade is executed, settling at the preset price while also receiving APR rewards.

The product may also allow users to buy at a lower price or sell at a higher price than through a direct trade when the target price is reached.

When the target is not triggered, users receive their principal back together with the APR rewards accrued during the investment period.

The company noted, however, that the product remains non-principal-protected and that terms, eligibility requirements and potential restrictions apply.

Real-world asset (RWA) perpetual futures are starting to look less like a side experiment and more like a meaningful part of crypto derivatives. Data shared by Talos indicates that, over the past week, trading volume in RWA-linked perpetuals on major venues came close to Bitcoin perpetuals—an outcome that underscores how quickly tokenized finance is finding a home in onchain markets.

Talos estimates that tracked seven-day volume across RWA perps reached $61.7 billion as of a Thursday snapshot, equivalent to 99.2% of Bitcoin perpetual volume on Hyperliquid and Binance, the two venues where most of the activity is concentrated. Equity-linked contracts made up the largest share at 57.8%, followed by commodities at 28.2%.

Key takeaways

• RWA perpetuals nearly match Bitcoin perpetuals—tracked seven-day RWA perp volume was $61.7 billion, or 99.2% of Bitcoin perp volume on Hyperliquid and Binance.
• Equities dominate the RWA mix, accounting for 57.8% of RWA perp volume, while commodities represent 28.2%.
• Hyperliquid leads the category, reporting $25.1 billion in RWA perpetual trading volume for July 13–19.
• Tokenized RWA activity is expanding beyond trading, with onchain RWA value cited at about $36.8 billion excluding stablecoins (per RWA.xyz).
• RWA perps still remain a fraction of overall derivatives, with tracked RWA perpetuals at roughly 7.5% of total futures volume over the same seven-day period.

RWA perpetuals surge toward parity with Bitcoin derivatives

The acceleration in RWA perpetual futures is notable because it reflects demand for tradable exposure to tokenized assets—equities, commodities, and other instruments—using the same core mechanics that have driven much of crypto’s derivatives growth.

According to Talos, the combined seven-day volume of tracked RWA perps was $61.7 billion, representing 99.2% of Bitcoin perpetual volume across Hyperliquid and Binance. The breakdown highlights that traders have leaned most heavily into tokenized equity exposure, with 57.8% of the RWA perp tally linked to equity contracts. Commodities accounted for 28.2% of volume, while the remainder came from other categories including indexes.

Talos also frames the activity as broadly aligned with the current market concentration: Hyperliquid and Binance capture the majority of perp trading for these instruments, making them the key venues to watch for continued RWA derivatives traction.

Hyperliquid posts a clear lead as RWA contracts diversify

Venue-level data further clarifies where liquidity is forming. Hyperliquid recorded $25.1 billion in RWA perpetual trading volume during the week of July 13 to July 19—more than the combined volume of all other perpetual categories on its platform during that period, based on Talos’ reporting.

That performance is consistent with a broader narrative from market participants who argue onchain perpetuals offer structural advantages over traditional, expiry-based products. Pantera Capital previously suggested that perpetual futures could evolve into a dominant trading instrument beyond crypto, pointing to factors such as 24/7 trading, the absence of contract expiries, easier position management, and continuous price discovery (earlier coverage referenced by the article).

As for the composition during the early days of the current week, Talos’ dashboard shows RWA perpetual trading volume already at $37.2 billion, exceeding Bitcoin perpetual volume by about 9%. In that same snapshot, equity-linked contracts were $22.8 billion, commodities were $9.1 billion, and indexes were $4.2 billion. ETFs contributed about $338 million, while foreign exchange, pre-IPO, and other RWA contracts made up the remainder.

Why traders and platforms are leaning into tokenized assets

Beyond the perps themselves, the ecosystem backdrop also matters. The article cites RWA.xyz for the claim that the value of onchain RWAs has grown to about $36.8 billion, excluding stablecoins. While that figure is separate from derivatives volume, it provides context for why tokenized instruments are becoming more frequently used in trading strategies rather than simply being held or settled.

Crypto exchanges are also expanding past “pure” crypto listings, increasingly offering tokenized stocks and commodities alongside digital assets. This kind of product expansion can reduce friction for mainstream participants—particularly those already familiar with equity and commodity exposure—while also giving crypto-native traders additional instruments to hedge, speculate, or rotate into.

Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire tied this momentum to a market narrative shift in an X post dated July 24, suggesting that rising RWA trading on Hyperliquid indicates crypto markets are moving “away from speculating on endogenous digital commodities.” While that framing is opinion, it aligns with the measurable trend Talos reports: RWA-linked perp activity is large enough to meaningfully compete with the scale of Bitcoin perpetuals on major venues.

Regulatory pressure and the “24/7” question for traditional markets

As onchain perpetuals grow in importance, traditional finance is starting to engage more directly with how regulation should treat blockchain-based markets. Intercontinental Exchange CEO Jeffrey Sprecher, whose company owns the New York Stock Exchange, has urged regulators to create a “level playing field” for 24/7 onchain perpetual futures—arguing that market structure should not block development of blockchain-based trading (referenced by the article’s link).

The central tension is that perpetual futures are built around continuous trading and perpetual exposure, while many legacy market products are tied to standardized trading sessions and defined product mechanics. If onchain platforms continue to deepen liquidity in tokenized instruments, regulators may face increasing pressure to define how such venues and products should be supervised, including issues around participant access, disclosures, and market integrity.

That said, Talos’ figures also imply that RWA perpetuals are still early relative to the full derivatives universe. The article states that aggregate futures trading volume across tracked platforms was about $821.4 billion over the past seven days, with tracked RWA perpetuals accounting for roughly 7.5% of that total—large enough to matter, but not yet dominant.

Going forward, traders and builders should watch whether weekly RWA perp volume can sustain the momentum indicated by Talos’ early-week snapshot (already $37.2 billion, ahead of Bitcoin perps by about 9%) and whether Hyperliquid’s outsized RWA activity persists as more venues potentially deepen liquidity. The bigger question for the market is whether RWA derivatives continue to move from experimental exposure into a durable, mainstream trading category—especially as regulators decide how to handle 24/7 onchain perpetual futures.

New York has sued Kalshi, seeking to block its prediction markets and recover at least $36 billion in penalties and restitution over alleged violations of the state’s gambling laws.

According to the New York Attorney General’s Office, Attorney General Letitia James filed the lawsuit on Friday, asking the court to stop Kalshi from operating prediction markets in the state and require the company to pay restitution to affected users along with civil penalties.

The complaint alleges that Kalshi has been offering event contracts tied to sports, elections and cultural events without obtaining a license from the New York State Gaming Commission. State officials argue those contracts fall within New York’s legal definition of gambling rather than federally regulated derivatives.

New York also alleged that Kalshi allowed residents under the state’s legal gambling age of 21 to participate in its markets, exposing them to financial risks while bypassing consumer protections required under state law. The lawsuit further accused the platform of avoiding taxes associated with gambling operations.

Filed alongside the complaint, New York’s motion for a temporary restraining order asks the court to immediately halt Kalshi’s relevant event contracts in the state. The filing also seeks restitution for users, disgorgement of revenue earned through the offerings, treble damages and an additional $100,000 penalty for each offering.

Court filings cited by the attorney general’s office estimate that the requested compensatory damages could reach at least $36 billion, subject to a complete accounting of Kalshi’s business in New York.

“Kalshi has chosen to ignore New York’s gaming laws, which exist to protect consumers, prevent problematic gambling, deliver funding for critical public services, and ensure that every company plays by the same rules,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said in a statement released by the attorney general’s office.

Attorney General Letitia James also defended the lawsuit, saying, “New York’s gambling laws protect children from underage betting and help combat gambling addiction. No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple.”

New York has expanded its legal challenge against Kalshi

The latest lawsuit follows several months of legal disputes between New York regulators and Kalshi over whether the company’s sports-related event contracts fall under federal commodities law or state gambling rules.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres again declined Kalshi’s request for emergency relief while its appeal continues before the Second Circuit.

As previously reported, Torres denied Kalshi’s request for an injunction pending appeal on July 27 after concluding that the company had not satisfied the higher legal standard required for emergency relief. The judge also rejected Kalshi’s request for short-term administrative protection from New York enforcement.

Her decision followed an earlier July 7 ruling that found the Commodity Exchange Act was unlikely to preempt New York’s gambling laws as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts. Kalshi appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the case remains pending.

In rejecting the emergency request, Torres said Kalshi’s claim that compliance with New York law could jeopardize its federal registration was speculative. She also found that the company’s expected compliance costs were largely financial and therefore did not amount to irreparable harm under the legal standard for an injunction pending appeal.

The judge further declined to rely on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s proposed June rule on prediction markets. Although the proposal states that the Commodity Exchange Act expressly preempts conflicting state laws for transactions on CFTC-registered exchanges, Torres said courts must independently interpret federal statutes under the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision because the proposal has not become a final rule.

The CFTC has continued pressing its federal jurisdiction argument

Separate from New York’s lawsuit, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed its own motion for a temporary restraining order on Thursday seeking to prevent New York from pursuing criminal or civil enforcement against Kalshi and other CFTC-registered prediction market platforms.

The regulator has argued in multiple cases that Congress gave it exclusive authority to oversee federally registered event-contract markets and that states should not regulate products listed on designated contract markets.

That position remains central to Kalshi’s appeal as the company continues arguing that its contracts fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Commodity Exchange Act.

The commission has also proposed a new regulatory framework that would establish a contract-by-contract review process for event contracts involving gaming, unlawful conduct, war, terrorism and assassination. The proposal’s public comment period closed on July 27, but the agency has not announced when it will issue a final rule.

Courts across the U.S. have reached different conclusions on prediction markets

New York’s latest action comes as courts around the country continue issuing conflicting rulings on prediction markets.

Only days ago, Judge Katherine Menendez temporarily blocked Minnesota from enforcing its new prediction market ban against CFTC-registered designated contract markets, including Kalshi and Polymarket US, before the law’s Aug. 1 effective date.

In that case, Menendez found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed, at least in part, on their argument that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over qualifying swaps traded on federally registered exchanges. At the same time, she emphasized that the ruling was only preliminary and did not establish that every prediction market contract offered by Kalshi or Polymarket qualifies for federal protection.

Menendez also noted that permanent relief could ultimately apply to fewer contracts after a detailed review because some event contracts may not meet the legal definition of swaps.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has said the state will continue defending its law, maintaining that prediction markets constitute gambling and that Minnesota has authority to regulate unlicensed gambling activity.

Other states have taken a different path. Last month, a Michigan judge temporarily barred Kalshi from offering sports-related event contracts in the state, while a Washington court granted similar temporary relief last week after concluding that the platform was operating illegal gambling activities under state law.

Earlier this year, the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey could not regulate Kalshi’s sports-event contracts because they fell within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. New York federal courts, however, have adopted a narrower interpretation of federal preemption, leaving the legal dispute unresolved as multiple appeals continue.

The outcome of Kalshi’s pending Second Circuit appeal, together with the CFTC’s future rulemaking and the growing number of state lawsuits, is expected to determine how far states can regulate prediction market platforms operating under federal registration.