PredictHub editorial desk
PredictHub editorial
The editorial desk behind PredictHub’s prediction market guides, platform reviews and research. Materials without an individual byline are credited to the desk.
49 published materials
Contact the editorial team ↗Published work
Latest first- Platform review↗
Predict.fun review
The widest category list of any on-chain venue we verified, a maker fee of zero, yield paid on idle USDT collateral, and a resolution process its own documentation describes two incompatible ways. That last point decides this review. The user-facing knowledge base says markets run on UMA’s optimistic oracle, with bonds and escalation to a token-holder vote; the developer page describing the oracle actually deployed lists “Whitelisted proposers for price proposals” and “No bonding or dispute mechanism (simplified trust model)”. Both pages were live on the same day. The same developer documentation records that admins can flag questions for emergency resolution, and that a role holder on the Chainlink markets can settle rounds manually. We could not reconcile the two accounts from any primary source, which means a trader cannot establish from the venue’s own documents whether a settlement they disagree with can be challenged at all. Trading is genuinely non-custodial and the breadth is real. But the operator, PDF Labs Limited, states no jurisdiction of incorporation, holds no licence, and the mechanism protecting your position is documented twice and differently.
- Platform review↗
Crypto.com Prediction Markets review
The strongest settlement documentation of any venue we could not fully verify. Crypto.com says prediction trading is offered by Crypto.com Derivatives North America and “is subject to US regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission”, and the contract specifications back that up: each event is filed with the regulator, the elections contract names fourteen source agencies individually, the expiration value is defined against a named source on a named date, and the delay contingency is written out. Those filings need no account to read, which puts the venue ahead of most of this list on disclosure. Two things stop us going further. We could not locate CDNA on the CFTC’s own Designated Contract Market register, so we leave the licence field empty rather than repeat a company’s description of itself as a registration — a human should find the entry and record the exact registered name and date before this page claims one. And the CDNA rulebook, which the filings repeatedly defer to for jurisdiction and enforcement, could not be retrieved, so the dispute framework is named but its text is unread. Available in the United States only.
- Platform review↗
FanDuel Predicts review
The contracts are listed and settled by CME, which is about as established a counterparty as this category offers — and for the sports markets that are the whole point of the app, the fact CME settles on is supplied by FanDuel. That is not an inference: CME’s own certified product table, filed with the CFTC, gives the “Event Source” as the literal value “Fanduel” for every sports, entertainment and awards contract, where the economic contracts name the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the crypto ones name a CME index. FanDuel and CME are joint venture partners, and FanDuel discloses that “CME is a Regulated Affiliate of the Firm” — but no document we found describes how it produces that settlement data or what happens when it is wrong, and none of FanDuel’s four public Predicts pages says who determines outcomes at all. The formal safeguards are real: CME determines settlement under a published chapter, contingencies are set per product, and the arbitration agreement expressly preserves your right to CFTC reparations. Strong on rails and familiarity for an existing FanDuel customer. Weak on telling that customer where the number settling their contract came from.
- Platform review↗
DraftKings Predictions review
Careful contract drafting, a genuine CFTC-designated exchange behind it, and one published rule the venue is visibly not following. Outcomes are determined by Railbird Exchange, LLC, now trading as DKeX, whose certifications name their source agency precisely and set out contingencies most venues leave vague: a 48-hour clock if the source does not report, and an explicit rule that corrections before expiration count and corrections after it do not. The brokerage side checks out on the regulators’ own records — GUS III LLC, NFA ID 0571907, a registered Futures Commission Merchant since 14 July 2026 — and the CFTC vacated by amended order the provision that had barred exactly this brokered model, which is a supervised change rather than a workaround. Against that: DKeX’s Rule 9.5(b) says it “will make public notice of the disciplinary action by posting on the Website”, and no such page exists. Its certifications defer the decisive parameters to “the Market Specifications”, a term its own rulebook never defines. And markets trade with no matching certification at all — one day’s settlement report carried hundreds of soccer contracts while the certification index contains no soccer certification.
- Platform review↗
Interactive Brokers ForecastTrader review
The best-documented resolution process of any venue we cover, offered by the firm that owns the exchange doing the resolving. ForecastEx publishes a 75-page rulebook and a contract specification for every instrument — we checked all of roughly 11,470 live contracts and found no missing specification — and, far more unusually, it publishes what happens when settlement goes wrong. Its notices to members run to 439 entries and include eight occasions where the exchange replaced or overrode its own data source, including binary contracts settled non-binary at 50/50. That is a real, dated, readable history of contested resolutions, and almost nobody else supplies one. The counterweight is structural: ForecastEx is, in its own rulebook, “a wholly owned subsidiary of IBG LLC”, so the broker owns the venue that decides; determinations are “final and not subject to review”; and the exchange’s own committee rules on whether a dispute may even go to arbitration. Note too that the customer-facing FAQ presents settlement as strictly binary and never mentions the Event Review process at all. Best suited to economic and rate contracts and to traders who will read a rulebook. Not a sports venue.
- Platform review↗
PredictIt review
The oldest name in US political prediction markets, and — despite a CFTC letter that is constantly cited as if it were a licence — the only venue on this site with no regulator behind it at all. Its own terms say so: PredictIt “is not regulated by, nor are its operators registered with, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or any other regulatory authority.” We read CFTC Letter No. 25-20 and its parent 14-130 in full, and neither says anything about how a contract is determined or what recourse you have; what they do is permit the market to operate for academic research, cap what any one person may hold, and limit the scope to political contracts. The operator judges its own outcomes, its decision is “final”, and accepting the terms waives your right to seek other remedies. What it does well is publish: every market’s settlement rules are readable through its public API without an account, and settlement is targeted at under 48 hours. Choose it for political questions you cannot get elsewhere and for its long price history. Do not choose it expecting that a disputed settlement has anywhere to go.
- Platform review↗
Manifold Markets review
Play money, and that single fact should decide whether you open it. Mana cannot be converted to cash, so a price gap between here and a real-money venue is not an arbitrage and we never present it as one. What it buys is the best place in the category to learn the instrument: identical mechanics, no consequence for being wrong, and by far the widest set of questions because anyone can create a market. The catch is the other side of that openness — resolution criteria are whatever the person asking typed into a description box, and they settle it themselves. Note also that it is not purely play-money: its Prize Drawing pays in USDC and its Official Rules void entry in eight US jurisdictions. Best for learning, for forecasting practice and for questions no regulated exchange will list. Not a place to put money to work, because there is no way out.
- Platform review↗
Kalshi review
The only venue here whose regulator you can look up. Kalshi appears on the CFTC's own register as designated since 3 November 2020, the oldest designation in this pool, and that registration is the whole point of choosing it: a supervised order book, a stated fee schedule, dollars in a brokerage-style account rather than a wallet you manage, and an exchange under a duty to run surveillance. That duty is visible in practice — the CFTC fined a White House teleprompter operator in August 2026 for trading its mention markets on speeches he had read in advance — and so is its limit, since the order arrived months after the trades. The cost of all this is friction: identity verification, and a market set narrower than the on-chain venues list. Market data is public, so you can read prices and resolution rules before opening anything. Best for a US-eligible trader who wants a regulated counterparty more than the widest board.
- Platform review↗
Polymarket review
The deepest order book in the category, and the venue to beat on price if you can use it. Contracts settle on-chain in USDC, both sides are quoted independently so the spread is visible rather than buried, and the headline markets are genuinely two-sided. Two things temper that. Its own help centre lists 39 countries as completely restricted and names the United States among them, which is more restrictive than much of the coverage written about it. And the published fee schedule now charges takers, so the old "no trading fees" framing is out of date. Getting in needs no identity document by its own account, though that is an absence of a stated requirement rather than a promise. Best for someone outside the restricted list who wants tight pricing on a well-known question and reads the depth beside the quote.