Los riesgos legales y éticos de los mercados de predicciones impulsados por información interna

The rise of prediction markets has introduced a new frontier for institutional investors, blending speculative potential with profound legal and ethical challenges. While these platforms offer unique tools for hedging geopolitical, regulatory, and macroeconomic risks, they also expose participants to unprecedented vulnerabilities-particularly when insider-driven activity blurs the line between informed speculation and illicit advantage. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies and ethical frameworks struggle to keep pace, institutional investors must adopt robust strategies to mitigate exposure to both legal penalties and reputational harm.

The Regulatory Tightrope: From Polymarket to Kalshi

Prediction markets have long operated in a legal gray area, but recent events have forced regulators into action. The January 2026 case involving Polymarket-a platform where an anonymous trader profited $400,000 by betting on the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro-sparked immediate congressional backlash. Critics argued the trade raised red flags about insider knowledge, even as Polymarket defended its lack of explicit insider trading prohibitions. This incident catalyzed the introduction of the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act by Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), which seeks to ban federal officials from trading on prediction markets when in possession of material nonpublic information.

Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated competitor, has taken a different approach by explicitly banning insider trading under traditional financial market standards. This divergence highlights a critical risk for institutional investors: platforms vary widely in their compliance frameworks, and participation in unregulated or loosely governed markets could expose firms to enforcement actions. For instance, Polymarket's recent CFTC enforcement action for operating crypto-based prediction markets without registration underscores the regulatory perils of ambiguity.

Case Studies: NFTs, AI, and the Shadow of Insider Trading

Institutional interest in prediction markets has surged, particularly in niche areas like NFT floor price crashes. By 2025, platforms such as Polymarket, Omen, and Zeitgeist accounted for $317.91 million in total value locked (TVL), with 82% of activity concentrated in these markets. While these tools allow investors to hedge against volatility, they also amplify reputational risks. For example, a firm linked to a high-profile trade-such as the Maduro case-could face public scrutiny, even in the absence of proven misconduct.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into compliance frameworks further complicates the landscape. While AI-driven surveillance can detect anomalous trading patterns, it also raises ethical concerns about "AI-washing"-the misrepresentation of algorithmic capabilities to obscure risky behavior. Regulators like the SEC are now scrutinizing such practices, urging stricter transparency requirements to prevent market manipulation. For institutional investors, this means hedging strategies must account not only for legal compliance but also for the reputational fallout of perceived ethical lapses.

Hedging Strategies: Derivatives, Diversification, and Proactive Governance

To navigate these risks, institutional investors are increasingly turning to financial derivatives and diversified portfolios. Options, for instance, remain a dominant hedging tool due to their defined risk parameters, with the global derivatives market projected to reach $850 billion by 2025. Prediction markets themselves are being incorporated into these strategies, with 75% of U.S.-based proprietary trading firms either trading or considering participation in event-based contracts. However, the lack of standardized governance-such as ambiguous oracle systems for resolving outcomes-requires additional safeguards.

A proactive approach to compliance is equally critical. Firms like Susquehanna International Group and Intercontinental Exchange have entered prediction markets by providing liquidity on platforms like Kalshi, leveraging their regulatory expertise to navigate the evolving landscape. Meanwhile, wealth management firms are integrating prediction market insights into client communications, treating them as both speculative tools and real-time indicators of market sentiment.

The Path Forward: Balancing Innovation and Accountability

The legal and ethical risks of insider-driven prediction markets are not hypothetical. As Rep. Torres' proposed legislation and state-level initiatives like New York's ORACLE Act demonstrate, regulators are closing the gap between innovation and accountability. For institutional investors, the imperative is clear: hedge against regulatory exposure by prioritizing platforms with robust compliance frameworks, while embedding ethical oversight into investment decisions.

Failure to do so could result in more than financial losses. In an era where public trust in financial institutions is fragile, even the perception of complicity in insider trading-whether in traditional markets or prediction platforms-can erode stakeholder confidence. As prediction markets mature, the firms that thrive will be those that treat legal and reputational risks not as obstacles, but as opportunities to redefine responsible investing.