Update (Sept. 25, 10:20 pm UTC): This article has been updated to clarify Kristin Smith’s role with the Solana Policy Institute.

Summer Mersinger, formerly a commissioner with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), will step down as CEO of the Blockchain Association and leave the advocacy organization at year’s end after one of the group’s legislative priorities faced a significant setback in Congress.

On Friday, the Blockchain Association (BA) announced that Mersinger would step down as CEO on Oct. 16, when the group’s former chief executive, Kristin Smith, would return to lead the organization as interim CEO in addition to her existing role as president of the Solana Policy Institute. Mersinger joined the Blockchain Association in June 2025 after leaving the CFTC three years before her second term as a commissioner was scheduled to end.

“I came here from the CFTC because I believed this industry deserved clear rules of the road and a credible, unified voice making the case for them in Washington,” said Mersinger on her departure from the BA.

The organization cited Mersinger’s efforts to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, as well as helping to provide “regulatory clarity at the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and CFTC.” 

Notably, the organization did not mention the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act under consideration in the Senate, which the BA repeatedly pushed lawmakers to support. The bill failed to gain enough votes from Democrats and Republicans in a cloture motion earlier this month, which many experts expect will leave the legislation in limbo until 2027.

The Blockchain Association did not immediately respond to questions about Mersinger’s plans for 2027.

Related: CFTC issues warning over risky prediction market ‘mention’ contracts

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Strategy is asking shareholders to approve a structural change to how its preferred stock dividends are paid, moving four series—including STRC—from periodic distributions to daily dividend payments. The company says the switch would not alter the dividend rates or the total amount paid, only the timing and record-date mechanics.

According to an SEC filing released on Friday, Strategy’s board approved the proposal on Thursday and scheduled a virtual special meeting for Oct. 28. If approved, the company would make every calendar day a dividend record date, with dividends paid on the next business day. STRC would be the first to transition, with its initial daily dividend payment expected on Nov. 2.

Key takeaways

• Strategy plans to change four preferred stock series to daily dividend record dates without changing the stated dividend rates or total payout.
• Shareholders will vote on Oct. 28 during a virtual special meeting, following board approval disclosed in an SEC filing.
• STRC would move first; STRF, STRK, and STRD would follow in January, with first daily payments expected on Jan. 4.
• The schedule uses calendar-day record dates, unlike the business-day approach used by a prior “daily dividends” example in the market.
• Strategy’s CEO linked recent STRC volatility to leverage entering the market, saying the company is working to prevent similar unwind dynamics.

What Strategy is proposing to change

In the filing, Strategy states that it is seeking shareholder approval to amend the terms governing its four preferred stocks: STRC, STRF, STRK, and STRD. The proposal would shift dividends to a daily schedule while keeping the economics the same—specifically, Strategy emphasizes that it would not change dividend rates or the total amount paid.

Under the amended approach, each calendar day would become a dividend record date, with the payment made on the next business day. Strategy’s filings also outline the implementation timing: STRC would start the daily cadence first, while the other three series would transition later in the year.

Strategy further indicates that the amendments would take effect after it updates preferred stock certificates with the Delaware state authorities.

Timeline for STRC, STRF, STRK, and STRD

If shareholders approve the amendments, STRC would begin issuing dividends on a daily basis first. Strategy expects the initial daily dividend payment for STRC to arrive on Nov. 2.

The remaining series—STRF, STRK, and STRD—would follow in January. Strategy’s filing points to Jan. 4 as the expected first payment date under the daily dividend schedule for those securities.

Strategy’s daily-dividend shift follows Strive’s earlier move

Strategy’s proposal comes months after fellow Bitcoin-treasury company Strive became the first public company to adopt daily dividends for a preferred stock. According to earlier coverage and Strive’s announcements, Strive moved its SATA preferred stock to business-day dividend payments, setting the system to pay dividends every business day at a 13% annual rate starting June 16. Strive also reported it eliminated its outstanding debt in the first quarter.

Strategy’s plan is similar in spirit but different in mechanics. While Strive’s schedule is tied to business days, Strategy’s proposal would treat every calendar day as a dividend record date and then pay on the next business day. That distinction matters for investors because it affects how often new dividend entitlements can accrue and how dividends line up with weekends and holidays.

It also positions Strategy in an increasingly competitive landscape for yield-focused structures tied to Bitcoin treasury strategies, where timing of income distribution can become part of how investors assess convenience and cash flow patterns.

Why the change could matter for investors holding STRC

Strategy has marketed its preferred securities as part of its “digital credit” approach—preferred instruments intended to generate income within a capital structure connected to its Bitcoin treasury. STRC, described as a key component of that strategy, has been the subject of significant market attention this year due to volatility around its $100 stated amount.

As context for investors, Yahoo Finance data shows that in June, STRC fell sharply below its stated $100 level, reaching an intraday low of $71.25 on June 26.

In a recent appearance on Natalie Brunell’s Coin Stories podcast, Strategy CEO Phong Le attributed the decline to leverage building up in the STRC market more than the company anticipated. He described investors borrowing against Bitcoin at lower rates to buy STRC in order to capture the spread between borrowing costs and the preferred dividend yield. When Bitcoin fell, Le said, participants who borrowed against their holdings faced pressure to either add collateral or sell STRC, creating an unwind dynamic.

Le framed this as a lesson for future cycles—saying Strategy “did not expect the amount of leverage that came into the system”—and suggested the company is adjusting how it thinks about risk and investor behavior.

To reduce the odds of another similar unwind, Le said Strategy is aiming to maintain a strong US dollar reserve and has a policy that allows the company to repurchase STRC when it trades below its $100 stated amount. He also indicated an intent to attract more long-term holders, including institutional investors.

Since that June dip, STRC has reportedly recovered to around $98.41, close to Strategy’s stated goal of keeping the security within a $99 to $100 range. The preferred stock currently carries a 12% variable annual dividend rate.

What to watch next

Investors will likely focus on two near-term milestones: the Oct. 28 shareholder vote and the timing of the first daily dividend payments under the new calendar-day record-date system. Beyond logistics, the bigger question is whether moving to daily distributions meaningfully changes the trading and leverage dynamics that Strategy’s CEO said contributed to STRC’s earlier decline.

Polymarket has partnered with OpenWorlds to bring autonomous AI agents to prediction markets covering politics, sports, and thousands of other events.

According to OpenWorlds’ announcement and information shared with crypto.news, the AI lab is working with Polymarket to let agents handle steps that traders would otherwise perform themselves: finding an event market, assessing it, and making a trade. OpenWorlds describes its software as a way to run that process repeatedly across live markets.

The company says it is building personal trading agents for consumers and retail traders. Its proposed workflow gives an agent the ability to search across markets and act on its assessment, rather than presenting a list of possible trades for a person to execute manually. OpenWorlds also compares the process with the research and trading work carried out by investment firms.

How OpenWorlds agents would trade on Polymarket

OpenWorlds describes three linked tasks for its agents: discovery, evaluation, and trading. In practice, an agent searching Polymarket would need to identify a contract tied to a specific event before assessing the available information and deciding whether to take a position. The company says its system is designed to repeat that process as events and markets change.

Polymarket lists contracts tied to outcomes in politics, sports, and other subjects. Prices in those markets move as participants buy and sell positions before an event is resolved. OpenWorlds’ proposal places an automated trader in that existing process, with the agent carrying out the research and execution steps described by the company.

For a retail user, the degree of control given to an agent matters because finding a market and placing an order are different actions. OpenWorlds’ privacy policy says users own their wallets through their chosen wallet provider and that the company does not collect or store private keys. It also says its services may support delegated signing for AI operations.

The policy says OpenWorlds records agent configurations, action logs, and results. When a user enables an integration, requests and related data can be sent to a third-party market platform to execute actions and return results, according to the company. OpenWorlds also says it uses data from AI system activity to train and improve its models and platform features.

The partnership brings the agent workflow to a platform that has been changing how trading information reaches its applications. In September, Polymarket moved its main blockchain indexing system in-house. Vice President of Engineering Josh Stevens said the new setup could surface some onchain events up to 14 blocks, or about 28 seconds, faster, while Goldsky remained available as a backup. The indexing system update covers data behind trades, positions, and balances.

Polymarket integrations have expanded beyond its own app

Other companies have also built ways for users to reach Polymarket markets through separate products. In August, Fortune Protocol integrated Polymarket liquidity into Fortune Markets alongside Predict.fun. Its interface lets users compare liquidity, trading volume, and market probabilities, then choose an outcome and preview a position before trading.

OpenWorlds describes a different set of functions. Its announcement focuses on an agent that searches, evaluates and trades, while Fortune’s integration presents market information and a trading flow to the user. Both arrangements involve outside products interacting with prediction markets, but the companies describe different roles for their software.

Polymarket’s own technology work has also included automated execution tools. As covered in September, the company acquired DeFi infrastructure startup Brahma in March, adding programmable smart-account technology intended to support wallets, deposits, asset routing and redemption of prediction-market outcome tokens. Polymarket had also purchased the registered derivatives exchange QCEX and prediction-market data company Dome.

U.S. access depends on which Polymarket platform is used

For American traders, Polymarket’s international blockchain platform and its regulated U.S. operation are separate. Following a 2022 settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Polymarket agreed to prevent U.S. customers from using its international operation. It later returned to the U.S. market through a CFTC-registered exchange it acquired. An August report on Polymarket’s midterm surveillance described the distinction between the two operations.

Polymarket’s global head of investigations and intelligence, Shana Bautista, told Reuters in August that the company combines machine learning, blockchain analytics and trade surveillance to identify unusual activity. Polymarket said it had referred more than 100 cases to law enforcement. Its monitoring work included preparations for trading tied to the U.S. midterm elections.

State rules present another question for U.S. access to event contracts. On Sep. 24, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Polymarket over sports contracts, alleging that it offered gambling products without a state license and allowed users aged 18 to 20 onto its platform. The state is seeking to stop the alleged unlicensed activity, obtain customer restitution, and impose civil penalties. Polymarket can contest the allegations in court.

The New York petition cites contracts tied to sports outcomes, including a July baseball game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets. State officials argue that federal oversight of event contracts does not remove New York’s authority over sports wagering. Prediction-market operators have argued in related cases that qualifying contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges fall under CFTC jurisdiction.

Cosmos Hub validators have secured 1.23 million ATOM taken in a Neutron governance attack after halting the network for about 24.5 hours and moving the tokens to a recovery wallet.

Cosmos Labs said in a Sep. 25 update that the Hub itself was not attacked and Hub user funds were unaffected. The stolen ATOM came from Neutron, where a malicious governance proposal gave the attacker control over contracts used by Astroport and other protocols.

At the time of the Hub’s halt, 1,227,121 ATOM remained in the attacker’s address. Validators restarted the network on Sep. 23 using Gaia v28.3.0, a software update that moved the balance to a wallet controlled by six community validators. Four of them must approve any transaction from that wallet.

The tokens are being held while the Neutron recovery team prepares a plan. Under the arrangement described by Cosmos Labs, the signers cannot return the funds until a Cosmos Hub governance proposal authorizes the transfer.

Cosmos Hub halt stopped the remaining ATOM from leaving

After the Neutron attack on Sep. 22, the attacker sent stolen assets to several chains and began swapping some of the ATOM through THORChain, according to the Cosmos Labs account. About 1.73 million ATOM reached the Hub, where the attacker could have continued moving it even after Neutron stopped producing blocks.

Neutron contributors and community members alerted Hub validators and Cosmos Labs at about 09:50 UTC. Validators representing more than one-third of the Hub’s voting power then stopped their nodes, bringing the network to a halt at block 33,086,740 by about 11:18 UTC.

During the pause, Cosmos Labs prepared a one-time software change at the validators’ request. Its written plan identified the attacker’s address, the destination wallet, the six proposed signers and the single account that the update would affect. Validators received that plan before the patched software was distributed.

Nansen, Keplr, Enigma, Silknodes, Kiln and Polkachu agreed to hold the six signing keys. Cosmos Labs said the signers independently checked the wallet address and verified it with a test transaction before developers added it to the update.

By the time of the scheduled restart, validators representing more than two-thirds of voting power had installed v28.3.0. Block production resumed at 12:00 UTC on Sep. 23, and the 1,227,121.37 ATOM transfer took effect about six minutes later. Cosmos Labs said 174 of the Hub’s 180 validators were online by the end of that day.

The participating validators included Coinbase and Kraken, according to the update. Their role was part of the Hub’s coordinated software restart; Cosmos Labs said exchanges and other operators were subsequently told that deposits and withdrawals could resume once the network was stable.

Some ATOM left before and after the restart

The secured balance represents only the ATOM still in the attacker’s Hub address when validators halted the chain. Cosmos Labs said roughly 500,000 ATOM had already been swapped for ETH through THORChain before the halt and could not be recovered through the Hub update.

A separate THORChain transaction returned 168,990.9 ATOM to the attacker’s address shortly after block production resumed. The attacker moved that balance to Osmosis and sold it, according to the forum post.

Cosmos Labs said the possible refund was identified while validators were preparing to restart, after the patched software had been distributed and installed by many operators. The update authorized a single transfer of the balance present at the halt height. It did not block later transactions from the attacker’s address or move funds that arrived after the restart.

The Hub response also did not cover assets sent to other networks. Cosmos Labs identified stolen funds that had moved through dYdX, Noble, Osmosis, Axelar and EVM chains, as well as assets still on Neutron. Teams handling those networks are coordinating their own recovery efforts, the company said.

An earlier, separate incident affected software used by other Cosmos networks. In August, crypto.news reported that attackers exploited a Cosmos EVM flaw across six chains and converted stolen tokens into about $5.72 million in other assets. Cosmos Labs’ account of the Neutron case describes a governance attack on Neutron, not that Cosmos EVM flaw.

ATOM return depends on a Hub governance vote

The six signers have agreed to hold the recovered ATOM without staking, lending or trading it, Cosmos Labs said. They describe their role as carrying out an authorized return, rather than deciding for themselves which affected accounts should receive funds.

A Cosmos Hub governance proposal must pass before the wallet can make that transfer. The Neutron recovery team expects to submit a proposal in the coming week, once it has set out the proposed destination and return process. Neutron’s maintainers also expect to publish their account of the attack early next week.

The governance requirement gives ATOM holders a direct role in the next step. Cosmos Hub governance has previously decided other matters affecting the token: a March Osmosis proposal sought to convert OSMO to ATOM and place unclaimed tokens in the Hub community pool, though a later Hub vote rejected that plan.

For the Neutron recovery, Cosmos Labs said the secured ATOM remains in the validator wallet while the proposal is prepared. The company has shared the attacker’s addresses with more than 30 exchanges, bridges, and custodians, and said several have confirmed that they blocked the addresses.

States have tried to wrangle prediction markets offering sports-related contracts under their regulatory frameworks since they started taking off after the 2024 election, arguing that these markets are competing with state gambling platforms and offering identical products to gambling sites and apps. For many states, the issue is that federally regulated platforms do not pay state taxes, while still competing with state-regulated platforms. Another major point of contention is the fact that prediction markets often offer their products to people as young as 18, rather than 21, like most state gambling operators.

In Friday’s ruling, the three-judge panel said it agreed that Kalshi did have the right to bring a case, but disagreed that the products in question were federally regulated swaps.

“While we agree with Kalshi that its sports-event contracts are conditioned on the occurrence of ‘event[s],’ we conclude that Kalshi’s contracts do not depend on events that are ‘associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence’ within the meaning of the statute,” the ruling said.

The ruling used the New York Giants winning a Super Bowl as an example case, saying the result could depend on how the “event” in question is defined. If the event is the Giants winning, then that victory would be described as “that event having occurred.”

Her crypto work included a wide range of policy statements and guidance that clarified the agency’s position on various aspects of the industry, including mining, staking, memcoins and — most importantly — a series of definitions for classifying different types of crypto assets and which regulator would have dominion. More recently, the agency began proposing formal rules, beginning with one known as Regulation Crypto Assets, which set up a system for offering crypto assets without triggering stringent securities regulations.

The agency’s biggest splash, though, may have been its recent opening of the pathway for tokenizing securities. The effort known as the “innovation exemption” is meant to launch the tokenized securities era in a limited, five-year approach that will inform plans for eventual agency rules that make it more permanent.

“Maximizing people’s freedom to choose what is best for themselves and their families within sensible regulatory parameters designed to give them the confidence to transact with others is a delicate and vitally important task for the regulator,” Peirce, who’s going to be an associate professor at Regent University School of Law, wrote in her resignation.

Peirce acknowledged her nickname, “Crypto Mom,” in a 2019 speech during the industry-resistant era at the agency, and she also noted the agency had “hindered innovation and growth,” saying, “The only guidance out of the SEC is a parade of enforcement actions and a set of staff guidance documents and staff no-action letters.”

Google has disclosed that its PageBreak AI security agent has found over 500 cross-site scripting vulnerabilities across the company’s web applications.

The Google Product Security team said PageBreak began as a pilot in November 2025 and became a formal project in January 2026. It tests Google’s own web applications and has found cross-site scripting, or XSS, flaws even on sensitive company domains. Google did not identify the affected applications in its announcement.

XSS occurs when an application allows an attacker’s script to run in another user’s browser. Depending on the application and the attacker’s access, the flaw can expose data or let someone act through an affected user’s session. Google reported more than 500 findings across its applications, but did not give a breakdown by product or severity.

How PageBreak confirms suspected flaws

Rather than sending every suspected bug to a product team, PageBreak passes each candidate to a specialized validator. For an XSS finding, the validator inserts a JavaScript payload, loads the affected page, and checks whether the script runs. Google said the validation step has kept the system’s false positive rate close to zero.

The agent can also test other types of flaws. According to Google, its validators check whether an injected input changes a database query, whether an application exposes a file through path traversal, or whether it can be made to execute code. A separate check looks for requests that an application sends to internal services.

Most PageBreak scans use Gemini models, including Gemini 3.1 Pro and Gemini 3.5 Flash, although Google said the agent can work with different models. The validators themselves are not written by the AI agent. Google also runs agents through repeated attempts because a model can follow an unproductive path before finding a workable exploit.

Google built the validation process in response to a problem its security staff had encountered: AI-generated reports can describe convincing attack paths that fail when tested. Under PageBreak’s process, unverified candidates stay within the security team’s workflow. They can guide later scans or help engineers build new validators, but Google said they are not sent to product teams as confirmed bugs.

PageBreak found two flaws in protected applications

Among hundreds of applications built on Google’s high-assurance web frameworks, PageBreak identified two XSS vulnerabilities as of Sep. 4, Google said. Both were confined to internal applications or debug endpoints with gaps in their security protections. The result covers that group of applications; Google’s figure of over 500 findings covers its first-party web applications more generally.

The framework result gives Google a way to test how its application design holds up against repeated scans. PageBreak also has access to company tools that help it inspect applications at scale. Google said its code repository lets the agent follow paths across services, while security data from live web traffic can connect a requested page to the relevant source code. Existing scanners give it authenticated access to internal sites that can be difficult for an outside researcher to examine.

Those resources help explain the scope of Google’s findings without suggesting that another organization could obtain the same results simply by running a Gemini model. PageBreak’s reported count comes from scans of Google’s applications with access to Google’s code, traffic data and testing systems.

Crypto teams face the same verification workload

The problem of checking AI-generated security reports has also surfaced in crypto software. In July, Ethereum Foundation security research described a process in which agents develop potential findings and separate reviewers try to reproduce them. The foundation reported one confirmed flaw in libp2p, later disclosed as CVE-2026-34219, while warning that plausible reports can involve unreachable code or attack conditions that do not hold in practice.

For teams that handle crypto users’ funds, the difference between a candidate issue and a working exploit affects how quickly a report can lead to a fix. An August Bitcoin Red Team scan logged 7,958 findings across 501 open-source projects after 108 hours. At that point, 24.7% of the findings had reproducible proofs; the full tally did not represent 7,958 confirmed exploitable vulnerabilities.

Earlier reporting on crypto bug bounties described a similar review burden. Cosmos Labs co-CEO Barry Plunkett said in April that submissions to its program had risen 900% from the previous year, including both valid and invalid reports. PageBreak is an internal Google tool, and Google has not said it is available to crypto projects.

Google plans to pair findings with fixes

Even after limiting reports to verified findings, Google said its product teams still receive a high volume of security work. PageBreak is therefore working with other Google projects, including CodeMender, an agent that generates bug fixes. Google plans to deepen that connection so product teams can review proposed fixes alongside confirmed vulnerabilities.

OG.com Markets is seeking US regulatory approval to offer perpetual futures tied to individual stocks, as trading platforms push to bring the popular derivatives product to US equity markets.

In a Thursday filing with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), OG.com proposed new rules allowing it to list cash-settled single-stock futures that never expire and can trade 24 hours a day, five days a week.

OG.com was recently spun out of crypto exchange Crypto.com as an independent prediction markets and derivatives platform valued at $5 billion. At the time, CEO Kris Marszalek said the platform planned to expand beyond prediction markets into futures and perpetual contracts.

Shortly after the spin-off, Robinhood took an equity stake in OG.com as part of a multi-year deal to use its CFTC-regulated derivatives exchange and clearinghouse for prediction markets.

Unlike traditional futures contracts, perpetual futures, or “perps,” have no expiration date, allowing traders to maintain exposure without periodically rolling into new contracts. The product was pioneered in crypto by BitMEX in 2016.

Related: President Trump’s media company to terminate Crypto.com deal

Perpetual futures push expands into US stocks

Crypto trading platforms and prediction markets are increasingly looking to bring one of the digital asset market’s most popular derivatives products to US stocks, with OG.com joining a growing group seeking regulatory approval.

On Sept. 18, Coinbase, Kraken parent Payward through its Bitnomial exchange, and prediction market Kalshi all filed to offer perpetual futures tied to individual US stocks.

The filings came after US regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and CFTC, pushed ahead with crypto initiatives despite the CLARITY Act failing to advance in the Senate on Sept. 15.

Source: Paul Atkins

Just days after the vote, the SEC cleared limited onchain trading of tokenized US stocks under its Innovation Exemption, while the CFTC expanded regulatory relief for software providers connecting users to regulated derivatives platforms, including those offering perpetual contracts.

The CFTC had already begun laying the regulatory groundwork for perpetual futures months earlier.

In May, the agency established a case-by-case review process for perpetual contracts and approved Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures product, followed in June by temporary relief allowing certain registered exchanges to convert existing crypto futures into contracts without expiration dates.

Magazine: Exchanges reporting crypto gains to IRS becomes tax nightmare

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that states have a right to regulate sports-related event contracts on prediction market platforms, marking a second major legal defeat for the industry as a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court looms. 

In a unanimous decision, the three judge panel said that Ohio and Tennessee are permitted to apply their state gambling laws to Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts. 

“We hold that Kalshi has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a ‘swap’ so as to fall within the scope of the CFTC’s ‘exclusive jurisdiction,’” the opinion said. 

Kalshi and other prediction market platforms argue all event contracts are swaps, a type of financial derivative that is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. However, states assert that platforms’ sports-related offerings amount to gambling, and thus should be regulated by their laws related to sports betting. 

This disagreement has spawned a legal battle across the country as states sue platforms for operating what they often claim are illegal gambling operations, while exchanges also sue states to block them from enforcing local laws on what they argue should be federally-regulated financial exchanges. 

The CFTC has sued nine states to defend what it believes is its exclusive right to regulate event contracts, given to it by the Commodity Exchange Act. But the 6th Circuit panel rejected that notion. 

“Even assuming that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are swaps, we alternatively hold that the CEA neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio’s or Tennessee’s gambling laws,” the opinion said. The decision overturns a Tennessee federal district court ruling that sided with Kalshi, and reaffirms a decision by a federal district court in Ohio that sided with the states’ argument. 

“Kalshi attempted an end run around Tennessee law to avoid any of the rules or taxes associated with sports gambling. They failed,” said Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee’s attorney general.

“Sports wagering is heavily regulated because it can do a lot of harm, and I’m glad we thwarted Kalshi’s efforts to remove every safeguard and put Tennessee sports bettors at risk,” he added.

Kalshi nor the CFTC immediately responded to requests for comment. CNBC has also reached out to the Ohio attorney general’s office for comments. 

The latest ruling now means prediction market platforms have notched two losses in legal fights at the appeals court level. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that Nevada has a right to regulate sports-related event contracts, stating that they were sports bets and not swaps. Meanwhile, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against New Jersey in April and said the CFTC has the exclusive right to regulate all swaps, no matter the contract type. 

New Jersey appealed that decision in a petition to the Supreme Court earlier this month. It is not clear whether the Supreme Court will take up the case now, or wait until further decisions from circuit courts on the issue of sports-related event contracts are delivered. 

Disclosure: CNBC and Kalshi have a commercial relationship that includes customer acquisition and a minority investment.

How accurate is the Netflix movie?