In 2026 we bet on the world

Translated by Annachiara Laino

In 2026, we're betting on the world. In recent years, online prediction markets have transformed from experimental tools to digital spaces capable of capturing and influencing global debate. Today, platforms like Polymarket allow users to exchange contracts based on the outcome of real events (elections, political decisions, armed conflicts, economic crises, the return of Jesus before 2027, etc.), translating collective expectations into percentages that increasingly resemble forecasts. In the current global geopolitical context, these markets raise profound questions about the relationship between information, speculation, and global responsibility, especially considering their surprisingly simple functioning.

On Polymarket, users bet money on a specific outcome, and the contract price reflects the probability assigned by the market to that event. The more money invested in a scenario, the greater its perceived "probability." This mechanism has led some observers to consider prediction markets more accurate than traditional polls, as they are based on real economic incentives. However, when the object of the prediction is not a sporting competition but the outcome of a war or the political fate of a country, the line between analysis and betting becomes ethically and politically problematic.

Polymarket's growth has been particularly evident in connection with armed conflicts and major international crises, where millions of dollars have been traded, betting on possible military escalations, interventions by foreign powers, and shifts in regional power relations. This has attracted the attention of governments and regulators, especially in countries directly involved in conflicts. Ukraine, for example, has decided to block access to the platform, defining these activities as a form of unauthorized gambling and denouncing the commodification of events that directly impact the lives of its citizens.

At this point, the question arises: what exactly are prediction markets? Are they financial instruments, betting platforms, or new information spaces? In the United States, on the one hand, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission claims jurisdiction over these markets, considering them financial derivatives, while on the other, some states challenge this interpretation and attempt to limit or ban their operation, arguing that they are disguised bets. We thus find ourselves faced with yet another situation in which institutions struggle to keep pace with digital innovations, increasingly confined to a gray area of ​​the legislative framework, escaping more traditional regulatory categories.

What makes regulating this phenomenon even more complex is its transactional nature, as these platforms, operating online and often on decentralized infrastructures, are accessible from countries with sometimes conflicting legal systems and ethical sensibilities. In the absence of a shared international regulatory framework, each state reacts autonomously, creating a patchwork of prohibitions and tolerances. For international organizations and multilateral forums, this represents a further direct challenge to global digital and financial governance.

Beyond the legal aspects, there are concrete risks to information integrity, especially considering that prediction markets can be vulnerable to manipulation, especially when a few large investors concentrate capital on a specific outcome, distorting the public's perception of probabilities. In the United States, several legislative proposals have been introduced that aim to prohibit the use of insider information in prediction markets related to public decisions. This is because the possibility that individuals with access to confidential information (public officials, military personnel, diplomats) could profit financially from undisclosed events raises concerns about insider trading and conflicts of interest.

Equally important is the media influence generated by platforms, whose percentages are sometimes reported by newspapers and social media as if they were objective indicators, helping to shape narratives and, in some cases, political behavior. This risks amplifying speculative dynamics, oversimplifying particularly complex issues, such as armed conflicts and economic crises.

It will now be up to the international community to determine the direction to take with these new platforms, seeking to integrate them into a regulated and transparent system to prevent abuse and inequality. As always, these developments are not simply about the regulation of a platform or its future, but rather the way in which technological innovations and finance interact with politics and economics, and above all with the fundamental values ​​of international law.

MondoInternazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026