Ipsos Survey Finds Most US Adults See Prediction Markets as Gambling

(AsiaGameHub) –   A recent survey indicates that the majority of Americans have a different perspective on prediction market trading compared to platform operators. The Ipsos study, commissioned by the American Institute for Boys and Men, revealed that a significant majority of US adults perceive prediction markets as more akin to gambling than investing.

Good to Know

• 61% of participants viewed prediction market trading as more similar to gambling.
• Just 8% considered it closer to investing.
• Approximately 20% of Americans reported being at least somewhat familiar with prediction markets.

Majority of Respondents Categorize Prediction Markets as Gambling

Ipsos polled 2,363 adults between February 27 and March 1. According to the commissioning organization, the research also featured an oversample of males aged 18 to 24.

Of those polled, 61% described prediction market trading as “closer to gambling,” while 8% said it was “closer to investing.” An additional 18% viewed it as a combination of both, and 12% said it was neither.

Prediction markets have experienced rapid expansion in recent years. Users can exchange contracts tied to sports, politics, business, entertainment, and other real-world events. This growth has attracted scrutiny from regulators and segments of the gambling industry, as the distinction between financial trading and betting continues to be debated.

Jonathan Cohen, policy director at the American Institute for Boys and Men, noted that young men represent one of the demographics most vulnerable to gambling-related harm, particularly as contracts connected to sports gain popularity.

“The negative impacts of sports gambling are disproportionately focused on younger men, making prediction markets the obvious next battleground in the discussion about sports wagering,” Cohen told Axios.

Debate Over Regulation Continues to Intensify

Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour has challenged the notion that prediction markets should be classified as gambling.

“I genuinely don’t understand the connection to gambling,” he stated in April. “If we’re considered gambling, then you’re essentially labeling the entire financial market as gambling.”

Nevertheless, regulatory pressure continues to mount. Both federal and state authorities are examining how to oversee prediction markets. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has indicated its intention to pursue legal measures to protect its jurisdiction over this area.

At the state level, multiple gaming regulators, including Nevada’s regulator and those from other states, have attempted to prohibit prediction market platforms from functioning within their jurisdictions.

Cohen stated that public sentiment could ultimately influence the battle over supervision.

“If the public perceives this as more similar to gambling than investing, then these platforms — particularly the sports-related contracts — should undoubtedly be regulated more like gambling than investing,” Cohen stated.

Awareness of prediction markets also remains limited. Approximately 4% of respondents reported having used one within the past six months, while only about 20% said they were very or somewhat familiar with them. This indicates considerable potential for public opinion to evolve as awareness grows and regulators determine the extent to which these platforms can operate.