CFTC探索超級碗賽事合同，crypto.com和kalshi

最近對Crypto.com和Kalshi的體育合同的調查都歸結為一個問題 - 活動合同是在《商品交易法》含義中以體育“遊戲”為前提

The recent Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) probe into the Super Bowl events contracts offered by Crypto.com and Kalshi has sparked discussions about the legal definition of "sports gaming" within the Commodities Exchange Act, according to crypto lawyer Aaron Brogan.

據加密律師亞倫·布羅根（Aaron Brogan）稱，最近對Crypto.com和Kalshi提供的超級碗賽事合同的商品期貨交易委員會（CFTC）調查引發了有關《商品交流法》中“體育遊戲”法律定義的討論。

The probe stems from a broader CFTC investigation into the legality of event contracts, which was initiated following the massive success of PredictIt's political prediction markets, Brogan said in an interview with CoinDesk.

Brogan在接受Coindesk採訪時說，該探測源於對事件合同的合法性的更廣泛的CFTC調查，該調查是在預測的政治預測市場取得了巨大成功之後開始的。

"The recent probe of Crypto.com and Kalshi's sports contracts all comes down to a single question — are event contracts premised on sports 'gaming' within the meaning of the Commodities Exchange Act?" Brogan said.

“最近對Crypto.com和Kalshi的體育合同的調查都歸結為一個問題 - 事件合同是在《商品交易法》含義中以體育'遊戲'為前提的嗎？”布羅根說。

The CFTC is specifically interested in determining whether Crypto.com and Kalshi are self-certifying these contracts without the Commission's approval, which would be illegal if sports events are deemed to constitute "gaming" under the Commodities Exchange Act, Brogan explained.

Brogan解釋說，CFTC特別有興趣確定Crypto.com和Kalshi是否未經委員會的批准，是否正在自我認證這些合同，如果根據《商品交易法》認為體育事件認為構成“遊戲”，這將是非法的。

However, the legal definition of "sports gaming" is surprisingly complex and has been the subject of much debate, particularly in the context of Kalshi's election betting contracts, Brogan said.

但是，“體育遊戲”的法律定義令人驚訝地複雜，並且一直是辯論的主題，尤其是在卡爾西（Kalshi）的選舉博彩合同的背景下。

In a ruling last fall, a judge defined "gaming" as "playing games" or "playing games for stakes," and cited discussions during the drafting of the Commodities Exchange Act, where a lawmaker stated that the rule against gaming was intended to cover sports betting, Brogan explained.

在去年秋天的一項裁決中，法官將“遊戲”定義為“玩遊戲”或“玩遊戲遊戲”，並引用了《商品交流法》的起草期間的討論，議員們說，對遊戲規則旨在涵蓋。布羅根解釋說，體育博彩。

"All of that sounds bad for these contracts, but I am not wholly convinced," Brogan said.

布羅根說：“所有這些對這些合同聽起來都不利，但我並沒有完全相信。”

The judge's finding on the gaming definition is dicta, or non-binding, and the legislative history is only relevant if the law is ambiguous, Brogan explained.

Brogan解釋說，法官對遊戲定義的發現是dicta或無約束力的，而立法歷史只有在法律模棱兩可的情況下才有意義。

Additionally, Merriam-Webster defines gaming as "the practice or activity of playing games for stakes," which suggests that these prediction markets would have strong arguments if they had to go to court, Brogan said.

此外，梅里亞姆·韋斯特（Merriam-Webster）將游戲定義為“賭注遊戲的實踐或活動”，這表明，如果這些預測市場不得不去法庭，他們將會有很大的爭論。

"At least in Merriam-Webster, this clearly means gambling, not sports, so I think these prediction markets would have colorable arguments if they had to go to the mats," Brogan said.

布羅根說：“至少在梅里亞姆·韋伯斯特（Merriam-Webster），這顯然意味著賭博，而不是運動，因此，我認為如果這些預測市場必須去墊子，這些預測市場將具有可著色的論點。”

Some judges might be receptive to this kind of textualist argument, especially given the changing composition of the CFTC, Brogan explained.

Brogan解釋說，一些法官可能會接受這種文字主義論點，尤其是考慮到CFTC的組成不斷變化。

Many believe that the appointment of Republican Caroline Pham as the Commission's Chair will lead to a more laissez-faire regulatory approach, Brogan said.

布羅根說，許多人認為，任命共和黨卡羅琳·帕姆（Caroline Pham）為委員會主席將導致更高的自由放任監管方法。

"The Democrats had been highly skeptical of retail-oriented event contracts and fought hard against first PredictIt and then Kalshi in 2023 and 2024 to attempt to prevent them from offering election contracts," Brogan said.

布羅根說：“民主黨人對零售業的活動合同非常持懷疑態度，並與首先預測的鬥爭，然後在2023年和2024年與卡爾西（Kalshi）進行了艱苦的戰鬥，以防止他們提供選舉合約."

But, how laissez-faire is still something up for debate, especially in the post-inauguration period, Brogan explained.

但是，Laissez-Faire仍然是辯論的事情，尤其是在國會後時期，Brogan解釋說。

"If they're probing into these post-inauguration Kalshi contracts, maybe they will still be hawkish on at least some event contracts," Brogan concluded.

布羅根總結說：“如果他們正在調查這些會議後卡爾西合同，也許至少在某些活動合同上仍然是霍克什。”