Survey: 79% of Prediction Market Users Lost Money, Half Borrowed to Fund Bets
A BadCredit.org survey of prediction market users found that 79% lost money over the past year, with 27% losing more than $500. The survey also found that 51% of users borrowed money — via credit card, personal loan, or other borrowing — to fund their trades, and 88% of those who borrowed lost money. Over half (53%) said they began using prediction markets to earn extra income or because they were struggling financially. The findings, widely reported in early October, provide consumer-harm evidence that contrasts with the platforms' investment-tool framing and may be cited by state regulators pursuing enforcement.
A survey of prediction market users conducted by BadCredit.org found that 79% of respondents lost money over the past year, with more than one quarter (27%) losing more than $500. The survey's most striking findings concerned borrowing: 51% of users said they used a credit card, personal loan, or other borrowed money to fund their prediction market trades, and of those who borrowed, 88% lost money. The survey also found that 53% of users said they started using prediction markets as a way to earn extra income or because they were struggling financially — a motivation profile more consistent with problem gambling than with the sophisticated hedging and forecasting use cases that platforms emphasize in their regulatory arguments. The findings were widely reported across US media outlets in early October 2026.
The survey data sits in tension with a Pew Research Center finding from September that most prediction market sports traders break even or post small losses based on an analysis of nearly 12,000 trading accounts. The two findings are not necessarily contradictory — they measure different populations through different methods. Pew analyzed actual account-level trading data, which captures all activity including small, frequent traders who may net close to zero; the BadCredit.org survey asked users to self-report their outcomes, which may over-represent users who feel their losses acutely and under-represent casual break-even participants. But the divergence matters for the policy debate: Pew's account-level data supports the platforms' argument that the loss profile is modest, while the BadCredit.org survey supports the state regulators' argument that prediction markets cause meaningful consumer financial harm, particularly through borrowing-to-bet behavior.
The borrowing findings are the most consequential from a consumer-protection standpoint. A product where half of users borrow money to participate, and where 88% of those borrowers lose, has a harm profile that regulators treat seriously. The practice of borrowing to gamble is a recognized marker of problem gambling, and licensed gambling operators in most US states and in regulated jurisdictions internationally are subject to responsible-gambling requirements designed to identify and intervene in exactly this behavior: deposit limits, affordability checks, self-exclusion tools, and restrictions on credit-card funding. CFTC-regulated prediction market platforms are not currently subject to the same responsible-gambling framework, because the CFTC regulates them as commodity exchanges rather than as gambling operators. The survey data gives state regulators a concrete consumer-harm argument: if prediction markets produce gambling-like harm (borrowing, losses, financial distress motivation), they argue the platforms should be subject to gambling-style consumer protections — which only applies if the platforms are regulated as gambling, which is the precise question in the ongoing litigation.
For the broader regulatory debate, the survey is a data point that both sides can use selectively. The platforms will note that self-reported survey data is less reliable than account-level analysis, that the survey population may not be representative, and that the existence of losing traders is inherent to any market (for every loss there is a corresponding gain, and sophisticated traders profit from less sophisticated ones). State regulators will note that the borrowing-to-bet rate and the financial-distress motivation profile are consistent with gambling harm rather than investment activity, and that the absence of responsible-gambling protections on CFTC-regulated platforms leaves consumers unprotected. The survey does not change the legal question — the CFTC preemption argument does not turn on whether users profit or lose — but it adds to the political and public-interest case that state AGs are building, and it is the kind of evidence that could influence how the CFTC itself approaches responsible-trading requirements as the sector institutionalizes.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi's Parlays Drive Back-to-Back $5B Days — and Hand Critics Their Strongest Argument
Kalshi traded a record $5.33 billion on November 7 and $5.36 billion on November 8, with multi-leg parlay-style 'combos' making up roughly 75% of both days' volume. Its 30-day volume topped $100 billion. But the parlay dominance cuts against the platform's legal defense: parlays are a quintessential sportsbook product, and the American Gaming Association has told the Second Circuit that parlays make up about two-thirds of Kalshi's volume and should be treated as sports bets. The implied house edge on 10-plus-leg combos is around 25%, undercutting the argument that these are neutral financial instruments rather than gambling.
Cruz Bill Would Require State or Tribal Approval for Sports Contracts — a Bipartisan Legislative Threat Emerges
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, is preparing a bill that would bar federally regulated prediction markets from offering gambling-tied event contracts, including sports, unless a state or tribal government authorizes them. It would not ban the contracts nationwide but would require platforms to obtain approval jurisdiction by jurisdiction, resembling state-by-state sportsbook regulation. The proposal arrives as Democrats take control of both chambers after the midterms, creating a potential bipartisan reckoning: a Republican committee chair and a newly skeptical Democratic majority both eyeing restrictions on a sector that had relied on federal protection.
CFTC Tells Platforms to Stop Geofencing States — Directly Colliding With State Court Orders
The CFTC issued an interpretation on November 5 of its 'impartial access' core principle, telling regulated exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket to drop state-by-state geographic blocks within 30 days or explain why they cannot. The demand collides head-on with existing state court orders that require the platforms to geofence: Washington ordered Kalshi to geofence in August, and Michigan ordered it to use licensed geolocation to block the state in September, with a $500,000 daily fine for violations. Chairman Michael Selig framed the interpretation as a uniformity requirement. The platforms are now caught between a federal demand to unblock states and state court orders to block them.