Key Points
- Jonathan Cohen, policy expert at AIBM, argues that prediction platforms and sports wagering need significantly better consumer safeguards, particularly for younger male demographics
- Nearly 40% of US adults suspect sports competitions are manipulated, signaling declining confidence in major institutions
- Cohen contends prediction platforms create confusion between investment activities and wagering, particularly on trading applications
- Recent insider trading allegations involving Polymarket and the Maduro situation have intensified legislative attention on prediction platforms
- AIBM advocates for age-specific limitations, automatic spending caps for users under 25, and evidence-based protective measures across wagering platforms
The American Institute for Boys and Men is advocating for enhanced regulatory oversight of prediction platforms and sports wagering across the United States. In a recent conversation with Gambling Insider, Jonathan Cohen, the organization’s expert on sports wagering policy, outlined his position.
Since joining AIBM this past January, Cohen has brought both scholarly credentials and advocacy experience to the role. He has authored two publications focused on American gambling regulation and has been featured on PBS programming and at a Brookings Institution discussion panel addressing prediction platforms.
His core thesis is straightforward: protective measures for sports wagering are insufficient, and for prediction platforms, they are virtually nonexistent.
Recent studies conducted by AIBM revealed that a substantial portion of Americans anticipate corruption within gambling-adjacent sectors. Survey data from Deseret News indicated approximately 40% of US residents suspect sports outcomes are manipulated.
According to Cohen, this trend mirrors a broader deterioration of confidence in American institutions rather than being limited to the wagering sector. However, he noted that industry communications regarding integrity “simply aren’t connecting” with ordinary citizens.
Emerging Concerns Around Prediction Platforms
Among Cohen’s most pointed critiques are those directed at prediction platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. He contends these services obscure the distinction between wagering and investment activity, especially when integrated into brokerage applications.
“Users might engage with a prediction platform genuinely believing it functions as an investment tool, without recognizing its gambling-adjacent nature,” Cohen explained.
He referenced the recent charges against a military service member for insider trading on Polymarket connected to the apprehension of Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro. According to Cohen, that incident has ended the “honeymoon phase” for prediction platforms in public perception.
Cohen also voiced apprehension about potential market manipulation. He highlighted Polymarket’s derivatives offerings, including a contract speculating whether trading activity around the second coming of Jesus Christ would surpass 5%. He characterized such contracts as apparently structured for manipulation, drawing parallels to fraudulent schemes in cryptocurrency markets.
The prediction platform sector has pursued credibility through media collaborations and positioning itself as “News 2.0.” While Cohen acknowledged some value in utilizing markets as quick indicators of public sentiment, particularly during electoral cycles, he suggested the underlying purpose of these partnerships is product normalization.
He also challenged the “wisdom of the crowd” rationale. The participant base for prediction platforms remains limited and disproportionately consists of younger males. That demographic composition doesn’t constitute a representative cross-section, he argued.
Recommended Protective Framework
AIBM is formulating a comprehensive policy framework. Proposals include establishing 21 as the minimum age threshold for both prediction platforms and sports wagering. The organization also endorses automatic spending limitations for participants under 25, comparable to measures Flutter has adopted in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Cohen advocates for restrictions addressing loss-recovery behavior and rapid increases in wager amounts. He noted that platforms already possess the analytics capabilities to detect these patterns but face no mandate to respond to them.
He stressed that any new regulations should derive from genuine consumer analytics. Currently, he observed, much of the prediction platform sector operates as a “black box.” Minimal public information exists regarding participant demographics, expenditure levels, or market maker involvement.
Cohen dismissed the existing array of voluntary responsible gambling features on sports wagering applications as inadequate. “The issue isn’t insufficient marketing,” he stated. “We must fundamentally reconsider allowing participants unlimited freedom immediately upon application download.”
Regarding legislative developments, Cohen suggested Congress is most inclined to address insider trading regulations concerning national security-related prediction platforms. A Supreme Court decision could also significantly reshape the regulatory environment for prediction platforms in the immediate future.
Cohen interpreted the establishment of a sports wagering super PAC as evidence the sector perceives vulnerability. He characterized it as “equally an acknowledgment of fragility as a demonstration of power.”
Multiple jurisdictions, including Colorado, Maryland, and Ohio, currently have pending legislation designed to strengthen sports wagering regulations.
