Most Americans see prediction markets as more like gambling than investing, new AIBM/Ipsos poll finds

Introduction

Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket allow users to buy and sell event contracts, financial instruments that correspond to real-world events and whose price reflects the perceived likelihood of a given outcome. While users can purchase contracts related to election results, gas prices, and pop culture events, the vast majority of the contracts traded in the United States today are on the outcome of sporting events. Traditional sportsbooks are regulated by states and are typically only available to users 21 and older. Prediction markets, on the other hand, are technically investment platforms, regulated at the federal level. As a result, they are available in all fifty states–including those that have not legalized sports gambling–and they are available to users 18 and older.

A growing body of evidence shows how smartphone-based, low-friction sports gambling can escalate financial and social harms, especially for young men. Some reports have shown that prediction market users lose money more quickly than users of online sports betting platforms. Prediction markets may pose a risk to consumers, then, as well as a whole new set of challenges for lawmakers, scholars, and advocates alike.

To understand how Americans are thinking about prediction market and the broader gambling landscape, the American Institute for Boys and Men commissioned Ipsos to field a poll with a nationally representative sample of 2,363 adults, including an oversample of 447 men ages 18–24 (“young men”) (margin of error ±2.2 percentage points for the full sample, ±4.7 percentage points for the oversample).

Additional findings are summarized below.

Platform usage

Most Americans are not actively betting on sports or using a prediction market, but usage is highly concentrated among younger men. In the past six months, 26% of young men report using at least one sports betting, daily fantasy sports, prediction market, or other gambling platform, compared to 14% of the general public.

Platform choice differs by the legal status of online sports betting in the states where respondents live. Respondents from non-OSB states report higher usage of daily fantasy products (PrizePicks and Underdog) and offshore casino platform Stake. Notably, prediction market usage does not meaningfully differ between OSB and non-OSB states, suggesting that the customer base for prediction markets is not entirely overlapping with that for online sports betting.

Ninety-six respondents had used a prediction market within the last six months. Despite the small sample size, their responses offer insight into what brings users to these platforms. Half of prediction market users said their top reason for using the platform was entertainment, while 41% said they primarily used prediction markets to make money (7% said they used the platforms for a different reason).

How should prediction markets be regulated?

Asked how prediction markets should be regulated, respondents show a clear preference for placing them into an existing regulatory bucket rather than inventing a new one.

Figure 2

Relatedly, just 9% of respondents—and 27% of prediction market users—say they are confident that prediction markets could prevent individuals with non-public information from unfairly profiting on the platforms (13% of all respondents were confident in online sports betting platforms, and 30% were confident in the stock market).

The public is not seeking prohibition of prediction markets, but the vast majority want some type of oversight. The large percentages of Americans who said they were not sure about each potential category of regulation suggests the public does not yet have a clear sense of what prediction markets are for, what risks they pose, and which safeguards would be most effective. There were no significant differences in opinion about prediction market regulation between respondents in OSB and non-OSB states.

Areas for future inquiry

• More detailed polling on prediction market users: who they are, where they live, and why they use these platforms. And given the evidence around potential harms from online sports betting, what are the potential harms from using prediction markets? And who is at risk of suffering these harms?
• The relationship between state-licensed gambling platforms, prediction markets, and unregulated—or loosely regulated—platforms. Do prediction markets pull people away from state-licensed sportsbooks or from unregulated or offshore products? Or do they represent a new pathway into gambling-like behavior—especially for young men?
• What drives Americans’ attitude that prediction markets, gambling in general, and online sports betting are bad for society? Are their concerns primarily related to addiction and financial loss, sports integrity, frustration with advertising, or something else? Are Americans’ concerns with these products motivated by the societal effect of gambling, or by the experience of someone close to them?
• What specific rules should be developed—at the state and/or federal level—to govern prediction markets and online sports betting?

Prediction markets are new to American life as a mainstream consumer product. Trading volume remains heavily concentrated in sports contracts and public familiarity with these platforms is still low. The AIBM/Ipsos poll reveals that, so far, Americans see prediction markets as risky, closer to gambling than investing, and bad for society.

The narrative around prediction markets is still largely unwritten. Advocates, journalists, and lawmakers have a rare chance to shape public understanding and regulatory frameworks before further adoption. Online sports betting expanded faster than any meaningful consumer protection framework. Prediction markets don’t have to follow the same path.

Please direct media inquiries and questions about poll results to [email protected].

Check out the full polling results, methodology, and crosstabs.

View topline and methodology     Download crosstabs