A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to investigate Polymarket after a report alleged the prediction market platform paid social media influencers to promote fake bets without clear disclosure. The move raises fresh questions about how regulators should treat event-based prediction products as prediction markets continue to expand their footprint with mainstream audiences.

In a letter sent to CFTC Chair Mike Selig on Thursday, Republican Senator John Curtis and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff said they were concerned Polymarket “used deceptive marketing tactics to promote gambling-style products to US audiences,” according to their press release. The lawmakers called the allegations “deeply troubling” and asked for immediate scrutiny if the claims prove accurate.

Key takeaways

• Senators John Curtis and Adam Schiff have asked the CFTC to investigate Polymarket over allegations of deceptive influencer advertising tied to fake bets.
• The concerns follow a Wall Street Journal report that reviewed more than 1,100 promotional videos and found that 70% included fake bets totaling nearly $2 million.
• Reports also say the CFTC has an ongoing investigation into Polymarket, though the timeline has not been disclosed publicly.
• Polymarket said it is auditing promotional content to ensure compliance with regulatory and disclosure requirements.
• The lawmakers argue the CFTC’s approach may not adequately address the realities of how prediction markets are marketed as gambling-like products.

Senators press for CFTC scrutiny over alleged deceptive promotions

Curtis and Schiff’s letter centers on claims that Polymarket engaged social media creators to film “fake trades” on websites styled to resemble the platform, and that many creators did not disclose they were paid for the promotional work. According to the Wall Street Journal’s June 20 reporting, the publication reviewed more than 1,100 videos and found that 70% showcased fake bets amounting to nearly $2 million.

The senators framed the issue not just as a marketing dispute, but as a regulatory concern tied to consumer protection and the distinction between lawful event-contract trading and gambling-like activity. They said the CFTC has repeatedly asserted authority over prediction markets and event contracts, but argued that current enforcement and oversight appear insufficient given how content creators portray the space.

“If accurate, these allegations are deeply troubling and demand immediate scrutiny from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” Curtis and Schiff wrote, according to the letter described in their press release.

Wall Street Journal report and timing of CFTC inquiry claims

The senators’ intervention follows the Wall Street Journal’s report, which described extensive influencer marketing tied to content that allegedly did not reflect genuine bets on Polymarket itself. The Journal’s review suggested a large proportion of promotional videos were not merely illustrative but involved falsified trading scenarios.

Shortly after that reporting, additional coverage indicated the CFTC was already looking into Polymarket. Earlier this week, CNBC reported—citing a person familiar with the inquiry—that the CFTC is conducting an “ongoing and extensive” investigation. CNBC also said the timeline for when the inquiry began was not shared.

Polymarket did not comment on the senators’ letter or on the reported investigation. In a statement provided earlier this week to Cointelegraph, a Polymarket spokesperson said the company was “conducting a comprehensive audit of active promotional content” to ensure it meets its “standards,” as well as applicable regulatory and legal disclosure requirements.

Why the dispute matters: enforcement, disclosure, and the gambling analogy

In their letter, Curtis and Schiff argued that regulators may be missing the practical implications of how prediction markets are presented to U.S. users. They referenced the recurring framing by creators of prediction products as “free money,” and they questioned whether that marketing environment supports treating prediction markets as something fundamentally different from gambling.

The senators warned that if prediction markets are being marketed with consumer behavior in mind similar to gambling-style betting, then the legal and regulatory approach may need closer scrutiny—especially regarding advertising practices and disclosures.

The lawmakers also asserted that they remain concerned the CFTC is neither enforcing the law appropriately nor equipped to act as a federal gambling regulator. They did not claim that all prediction markets should be regulated as gambling, but their argument emphasized that the real-world presentation and consumer messaging could undermine the distinction regulators often rely on.

Questions to CFTC by July 10 and what investors should watch

Beyond asking for scrutiny, Curtis and Schiff requested written responses from CFTC Chair Mike Selig by July 10. Their list of questions included whether the agency is investigating Polymarket, whether the reported advertising practices were legal, and whether the CFTC has adequate resources to police prediction market promotions and related conduct.

The letter also reflects the broader regulatory tension around prediction markets. The CFTC has claimed authority under federal commodities law, in part because platforms register with the agency and operate through structures the commission views as falling under its jurisdiction for commodities-related event contracts.

At the same time, the CFTC’s enforcement actions against state-level challenges show how complex the governance question remains. According to earlier reporting, the regulator has sued nine U.S. states that filed legal action against prediction market operators—alleging the platforms were effectively offering unlicensed sports betting through event contracts.

For traders, users, and companies operating in the prediction market ecosystem, the immediate uncertainty is what the CFTC will determine about promotional practices and disclosure compliance. The next developments to watch are any formal regulatory findings, changes to influencer marketing requirements, and clarifications on how the agency evaluates whether promotional content crosses lines between lawful trading representations and gambling-style inducements.

With both a congressional escalation and reports of an active CFTC inquiry, the key question now is whether the regulator will treat the alleged influencer advertising as a disclosure and consumer-protection issue, a jurisdictional matter, or both—and what that means for how prediction markets market their products going forward.

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to examine Polymarket after reports that the prediction market operator paid social media influencers to publish videos depicting fake bets. The request highlights intensifying scrutiny over how prediction platforms market products to US audiences—and whether existing CFTC oversight is sufficient to address deceptive advertising and gambling-style promotion.

In a letter to CFTC Chair Rostin Behnam, Senators John Curtis (Republican) and Adam Schiff (Democrat) said the allegations, if accurate, would point to “deceptive marketing tactics” used to promote gambling-like products. The correspondence follows investigative reporting by The Wall Street Journal and comes as the CFTC’s broader approach to prediction markets remains a subject of legal and policy dispute.

Key takeaways

• US Senators John Curtis and Adam Schiff have asked the CFTC to investigate Polymarket following allegations of deceptive influencer promotion.
• Reports cited by lawmakers describe videos showing fake trades on content styled like Polymarket, with limited or no disclosure that creators were paid.
• The lawmakers questioned whether the CFTC is enforcing existing rules effectively and whether it has the resources to regulate prediction market advertising and conduct.
• The request underscores ongoing tension between federal commodity regulation and state-level efforts to treat prediction markets as gambling or sports betting.
• Institutional compliance teams may face heightened scrutiny of marketing practices, influencer disclosures, and the product characterization used by prediction market platforms.

Senators request CFTC scrutiny over reported influencer promotions

The senators’ letter—sent to the CFTC—centers on concerns that Polymarket allegedly used influencer campaigns to promote its platform using content that did not reflect real trading activity. According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, Polymarket paid influencers to record videos of “fake bets” on websites resembling the platform, and many creators reportedly did not disclose that they were being compensated by Polymarket.

The Journal said it reviewed more than 1,100 videos and found that roughly 70% depicted fake bets totaling nearly $2 million. The senators framed the conduct, if verified, as both a consumer protection and regulatory enforcement issue—arguing that marketing practices can distort how US audiences perceive the risks and nature of prediction market products.

In response to the earlier reporting, a Polymarket spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the company was “conducting a comprehensive audit” of active promotional content to ensure compliance with its standards and applicable regulatory and legal disclosure requirements.

Regulatory authority and the “gambling-style” framing debate

Beyond the specific allegations, Curtis and Schiff raised broader questions about how prediction markets should be regulated in the US. In their letter, they argued that the CFTC has repeatedly claimed authority over prediction markets and event contracts, yet they described a marketing environment in which content creators often depict prediction products as “free money.”

The senators contended that these representations provide little basis for treating prediction markets differently from gambling-style offerings. They also warned that the contracts are not in the public interest and should not be treated as derivative products with hedging characteristics.

While the senators’ argument is policy-oriented, it is also operational from a compliance perspective: product characterization affects which regulatory frameworks apply, how marketing claims are reviewed, and whether conduct could be evaluated under commodity laws, anti-fraud standards, or state gambling statutes.

The dispute is occurring against a backdrop of increased prediction market use and regulatory attention. US lawmakers have highlighted concerns about the CFTC’s ability to police content and advertising, including how promotional campaigns influence consumer perceptions—particularly when promotions resemble or mimic real trading.

What the CFTC investigation could examine

The letter asks the CFTC to provide written answers by July 10 to several questions, including whether it is investigating Polymarket, whether the reported advertising practices were legal, and whether the commission has sufficient resources to police prediction markets. The senators’ requests reflect an enforcement focus that goes beyond marketplace mechanics—targeting marketing disclosures, promotional content integrity, and the adequacy of regulatory capacity.

Multiple reports have indicated that the CFTC is considering enforcement steps. CNBC, citing a person familiar with the inquiry, reported that the CFTC has an ongoing and extensive investigation into Polymarket, though the timeline for when it began was not disclosed. Polymarket declined to comment on the senators’ letter and on the reported investigation.

In practice, an inquiry of this kind could also involve scrutiny of influencer marketing controls—such as disclosure requirements, the use of simulations or staged content, and whether promotional material could be viewed as misleading. For regulated firms and institutional counterparties, such issues matter because marketing representations can be linked to compliance risk, reputational risk, and potential legal exposure under consumer protection and anti-fraud principles.

Federal vs. state oversight: the broader legal context

The Curtis-Schiff letter arrives amid persistent federal-state regulatory friction over prediction market platforms. The CFTC has argued that it holds authority over prediction markets because platforms are registered with the agency and operate under federal commodities law.

At the same time, the CFTC has pursued litigation tied to state efforts to regulate prediction markets. The regulator has sued nine US states that filed legal action to accuse prediction market platforms of offering unlicensed sports betting through event contracts.

This federal posture remains politically and legally contested. For compliance teams, the key uncertainty is that even when platforms argue they fall within commodity regulation, marketing practices can become a flashpoint—particularly if promotional content is perceived by regulators or litigants as indistinguishable from gambling or sports betting activity.

MiCA is not directly implicated in these US disputes, but the situation offers a broader institutional lesson: cross-border crypto businesses must manage divergent regulatory interpretations across jurisdictions. In the US, characterization battles can flow from product design and contract structure into advertising and promotion, creating compliance obligations that extend well beyond technical listings or trading interfaces.

Closing perspective

As lawmakers press for answers from the CFTC, the immediate focus will likely be on whether promotional campaigns and influencer arrangements complied with disclosure expectations and anti-misleading standards, and what enforcement resources the agency can deploy across a fast-growing prediction market ecosystem. The outcome could shape how regulated platforms structure marketing approvals, manage influencer relationships, and document compliance—while leaving unresolved questions about the line between commodity-regulated contracts and gambling-style promotion.

Key takeaways:

• SOL’s rebound to $72 shows bullish futures and airdrop hopes, but falling TVL and low DEX volumes point to fragile onchain demand.
• Tokenized stocks spark hype on Solana, yet Pump.fun dependence and Hyperliquid competition threaten sustained SOL momentum.

Solana native token SOL jumped to $72 on Friday, distancing itself from the $64 lows the prior day. Part of traders’ optimism stemmed from the stellar growth of tokenized stock trading, fueled by the AI sector. However, increasing competition in decentralized application networks could limit SOL’s short-term upside.

Solana tokenized stocks 24-hour volumes, USD. Source: Jupiter Aggregator

Tokenized stocks on Solana traded over $113 million in 24 hours, according to Jupiter Aggregator data. However, the relatively thin liquidity in the automated market-making pools raised concerns, especially as multiple issuers compete for similar products. Still, some of those tokens launched only recently, which might explain the low number of holders in most cases.

Blockchains ranked by DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL), USD. Source: DefiLlama

The Total Value Locked (TVL) on the Solana network dropped 11% over the past month, while the Ethereum layer-2 Base reduced the gap. Negative highlights on Solana TVL include a 19% decline in Kamino, a 20% trim by Binance Staked SOL, and a 17% decline in Raydium. The tokenization platform xStocks, on the other hand, posted 31% growth in TVL.

Solana weekly DEX volumes & DApps revenue, USD. Source: DefiLlama

Decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes on Solana fell to $10 billion per week from $30 billion in early February, coinciding with a downtrend in decentralized application (DApp) revenues. Thus, regardless of the successful launch of tokenized tech stocks and equity indexes, demand for SOL on blockchain processing remains subdued.

Solana’s dependence on Pump.fun and increased competition in tokenized launches

More concerningly, 30% of DApp revenue on Solana came from the token launch platform Pump.fun, which depends heavily on memecoin activity. A CoinGecko report revealed that 80% of the 18.7 million tokens launched in less than 48 hours, while 55% of the addresses involved lost up to $1,000 according to Dune data.

SOL perpetual futures annualized funding rate. Source: Laevitas

Demand for bullish leverage on SOL futures increased on Friday, pushing the funding rate to its highest level in June. The current 10% level is far from displaying excessive confidence, as the 6% to 12% range is typically deemed neutral. Still, the 14% gains since the $64 low on Thursday managed to reverse the bearishness marked by negative funding rates.

Related: Solana grabs 95% of tokenized equity as traders debate if SOL bottom is in

Part of SOL investors’ optimism stems from anticipation of airdrops on the network, although the timing of those tokens’ launch remains uncertain. Highlights include OnRe reinsurance with $200 million in TVL, Bulk perpetual DEX with an aggregate open interest of $325 million, and Loopscale lending platform at $79 million in TVL.

It might be premature to claim that SOL is bound to reclaim the $80 mark, last seen on June 1, given increased competition in tokenized stock trading from Hyperliquid and centralized exchanges on competing blockchains. OKX, for instance, formed a strategic partnership with the NYSE parent company using Ethereum-based systems.

Crypto infrastructure company BitGo Holdings laid off about 15% of its staff on Thursday as its CEO pledged to focus the company on areas including trading, stablecoins and artificial intelligence.

“Today I’m sharing a hard decision: we are reducing our workforce by nearly 15%,” BitGo co-founder and CEO Mike Belshe posted to X on Thursday. “The ecosystem has evolved, and the way we build financial services has changed dramatically.” 

“We need to be sharper, more focused, and concentrate our people and energy on the areas that matter most: security, trading, stablecoins, settlement, and AI-powered infrastructure,” he added.

The layoffs add to the thousands of jobs lost in the crypto industry so far in 2026, with many companies citing efficiency gains from AI and a wide crypto market slump as the reason for the cuts.

Source: Mike Belshe

BitGo did not confirm the number of staff affected in the layoffs. Its 2025 annual report published in March disclosed it had 603 full-time employees as of Dec. 31, 2025, meaning the layoffs could have impacted about 90 staff.

Belshe said the layoffs were “a one-time action” and BitGo does not “anticipate further reductions.” The company is still hiring for 51 roles across various regions, according to its job board.

BitGo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related: Blockworks acquires Messari in crypto data consolidation push

Shares in BitGo (BTGO) closed Thursday down 4.67% at $4.80, extending a nearly 73% slide from its public debut at $18 on Jan. 22.

Shares in BitGo on Thursday slid more than 4.5% after the company announced it cut 15% of its staff. Source: Google Finance

Crypto companies have so far cut more than 5,000 jobs this year, with Block Inc. undertaking the biggest round of layoffs by cutting 4,000 staff or about half its workforce in February. 

Robinhood cut 10% of its workforce on June 16, while in May, crypto exchange Kraken cut 150 staff, data company Dune cut 25% of its workforce and Coinbase cut 700 employees, or about 14% of its workforce.

Earlier this year, Gemini laid off 200 employees and Crypto.com also laid off about 180 staff, with both citing the rising use of AI.

So far this year, the wider US technology sector has seen over 121,500 layoffs from over 200 companies, according to Layoffs.fyi.

Magazine: Guide to the top and emerging global crypto hubs: Mid-2026

XRP has fallen to a 20-month low near $1.05, down more than 70% from its 2025 high, in a year-long downtrend. The $1 is the line that matters now. Below it, the charts point to $0.85 and then $0.70. Yet institutions keep buying the dip, and one Senate vote could change everything.

XRP is trading near $1.05, a 20-month low, and the round number just beneath it has become the line that defines the entire debate about where the token goes next.

After reaching a high of $3.66 in July 2025, XRP has spent the better part of a year grinding steadily lower, carving out a textbook downtrend of lower highs and lower lows that has erased more than 70% of its value from the peak. The price now sits just above the psychological $1 level, and the question that matters for the rest of 2026 is simple to state and hard to answer: Can XRP hold the $1, or is it heading toward the next support levels at $0.85 and then $0.70 that the charts identify below it?

What makes the question genuinely interesting, rather than a one-way bearish story, is a striking contradiction running underneath the falling price. Even as XRP has bled lower, institutions have been buying it, with billions flowing into newly launched exchange-traded funds and large holders accumulating at a record pace, and a single piece of legislation working its way through the Senate could, if it passes, change the token’s trajectory overnight. This piece works through that tension to build an honest prediction.

The reason to frame XRP’s outlook around the $1 line and the contradiction beneath it is that those two things, the technical battle at a key level and the clash between a bearish chart and bullish accumulation, are what will actually decide the price.

A list of multi-year targets, the staple of most prediction pages, obscures more than it reveals, because XRP’s near-term path depends on whether the $1 holds, whether the institutional buying is the leading edge of a reversal or a value trap, and whether the regulatory catalyst lands.

What follows traces the year-long descent that brought XRP here, maps the levels that matter on both sides, examines the paradox of institutions buying into weakness, weighs the CLARITY Act as the swing factor, lays out the bear case for a slide toward $0.70, and translates all of it into concrete bull, base, and bear scenarios anchored to the $1 line.

A year of lower lows

To understand XRP’s predicament, you have to see the shape of its decline, because the chart tells a clear and sobering story. XRP reached its high of $3.66 in July 2025, a level that capped an enormous run and marked the peak of its enthusiasm. From there, the descent began, and it has been remarkably persistent: rather than a single crash followed by recovery, XRP has traced a clean series of lower highs and lower lows for almost a full year, the textbook signature of a sustained downtrend.

Each attempt to rally has been sold into, each bounce has failed at a lower level than the last, and the price has ground inexorably downward, trading below its key moving averages and giving back the vast majority of its gains. By June 2026, XRP had reached a 20-month low near $1.05, with technical analysts describing the chart as an asset still searching for a bottom rather than building toward a breakout.

The most recent leg lower came as the broader crypto market sold off, with Bitcoin crashing toward $60,000 and dragging the major altcoins down with it. XRP, like most large-cap tokens, remains highly correlated with Bitcoin during major market moves, so Bitcoin’s slide to a 20-month low of its own pulled XRP to its lows as well.

The result is a token down roughly 40% year-to-date and more than 70% from its 2025 peak, sitting in oversold territory but with no clear sign that the selling has exhausted itself. The year-long downtrend is the dominant fact of XRP’s chart, and any bullish case has to contend with the reality that, on price action alone, XRP has done nothing but fall for a year, which is exactly why the defense of the $1 level has become so important. It is the line where the year-long decline either pauses or accelerates.

A bipartisan pair of US senators has called on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to investigate the prediction market platform Polymarket after it reportedly paid social media influencers to make videos of fake bets.

Republican Senator John Curtis and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff sent a letter to CFTC Chair Mike Selig on Thursday, saying they were concerned Polymarket “used deceptive marketing tactics to promote gambling-style products to US audiences.”

“If accurate, these allegations are deeply troubling and demand immediate scrutiny from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” they wrote.

The letter comes after The Wall Street Journal reported on June 20 that Polymarket paid influencers to film fake trades on websites resembling its platform and that many creators didn’t disclose that Polymarket paid them.

The Journal said it reviewed over 1,100 videos and found that 70% featured fake bets amounting to nearly $2 million.

In response to the report, a Polymarket spokesperson told Cointelegraph earlier this week that it was “conducting a comprehensive audit of active promotional content to ensure it complies with our standards, as well as applicable regulatory and legal disclosure requirements.”

The letter also came ahead of reports in the Journal and CNBC on Friday that the CFTC was investigating Polymarket.

CNBC reported, citing a person familiar with the inquiry, that the CFTC has an ongoing and extensive investigation into Polymarket, but the timeline for when the investigation began was not shared.

Polymarket declined to comment on the letter or on the reported CFTC investigation.

Prediction markets have recently exploded in popularity and have seen billions of dollars in volume each month, with Senators Curtis and Schiff expressing their concerns about the CFTC’s ability to regulate the platforms.

Source: John Curtis

“The CFTC has repeatedly asserted regulatory authority over prediction markets and event contracts,” the senators wrote. “Yet with content creators routinely portraying prediction markets as ‘free money,’ there is little basis for treating them differently from gambling.”

“These contracts are not in the public interest and should not be treated as derivative products with hedging value,” they added. “We remain concerned that the Commission is neither enforcing the law appropriately, nor is equipped to serve as a federal gambling regulator.”

Related: US senators push to end CFTC ‘assault’ on state oversight of prediction markets

The CFTC has claimed it has authority over prediction markets as the platforms are registered with the agency and operate under federal commodities law.

The regulator has sued nine US states that have filed legal action against prediction markets to accuse the platforms of offering unlicensed sports betting via event contracts.

Senators Curtis and Schiff asked Selig to give written responses to a list of questions by July 10, which asked if the CFTC was investigating Polymarket, if the reported advertising was legal and if it has the resources to police prediction markets, among others.

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?