From July 13 to 15, 2026, the global landscape of cryptocurrency regulation and compliance suddenly tightened within a very short window: the Czech Ministry of Finance included the prediction market platform Polymarket on the "Unauthorized Online Gaming List" and required domestic ISPs to cut off access within 15 days. Previously, Italy and the Netherlands had blocked access to the platform, while at the EU level, ESMA this month explicitly indicated that event contracts might fall under binary options regulations, marking the emergence of a tendency to treat a whole category of prediction products as either gambling or regulated financial instruments. In parallel with the "blacklist," there is another path attempting to draw the same business back to licensing—the introduction of a dedicated regulatory framework for prediction markets in Gibraltar and Malta exploring similar systems; meanwhile, on the capital markets and platform side, Binance launched the EIO model under Capital Connect, proactively designing compliant display channels for trading teams and institutional investors, Hyperliquid's policy center moved toward dialogue with the U.S. SEC's cryptocurrency task force, South Korea's Upbit entered the lobbying arena by joining the U.S. Digital Chamber of Commerce, and the Johor state government in Malaysia called for an investigation into the Network School project involving Israeli citizens, bundling geopolitical and project risks together. These actions collectively outline a global competition around "who can continue to operate within regulatory red lines," as different jurisdictions and platforms employ distinctly different strategies to vie for the future compliance positions of prediction and trading businesses.

Czech Republic Blocks Polymarket: Prediction Market Again Treated as Gambling

In the Czech Republic, Polymarket has officially been dragged into the list of traditional gambling regulations. On July 13, 2026, the Czech Ministry of Finance included the platform in the "Unauthorized Online Gaming List," equivalent to being classified as an unlicensed online gambling operation, and required domestic ISPs to cut off access within 15 days. Jan Řehola, responsible for gambling regulation, immediately emphasized that under the legal gambling framework, "the state should be clear about who is operating and who is participating in gambling," clearly stating the regulatory position: regardless of whether you claim to be a blockchain prediction or information market, as long as users bet on event outcomes and generate wins or losses, it is regarded as gambling and must be included under licensing and real-name verification scrutiny.

This is not an isolated action but the latest link in the tightening of attitudes toward prediction markets within the EU. Italy and the Netherlands had previously blocked access to Polymarket, classifying it as "unauthorized gambling or restricted financial products." Now, the Czech Republic follows suit, cutting off access through telecom gateways, creating a cross-blockade from multiple member states against the same platform. Meanwhile, the EU securities regulator ESMA issued a warning this month, indicating that event contracts may need to comply with binary options-related rules, pulling such on-chain contracts toward financial derivatives regulatory frameworks. Under the dual pressure of gambling regulation and financial product regulation, the prediction market is being redefined in the EU: not merely as "marginal innovative applications," but rather either treated as unlicensed gambling operations or as high-risk financial contracts, significantly narrowing the space for platforms to continue operating in Europe.

Two Paths for Prediction Markets: Blocking and Framework Contest

After the Czech Republic followed Italy and the Netherlands in choosing "direct blockage," the division of routes concerning prediction markets within the EU was thoroughly laid bare: one path categorizes these platforms as "unauthorized gambling or restricted financial products," resolving compliance risks through blacklists and ISP access cuts; the other path, as explored by Gibraltar and Malta, attempts to devise specialized rules to integrate event contracts into licensed financial and gambling systems, allowing them to exist under the logic of capital markets. The former is akin to shutting the door, while the latter repositions the door: Gibraltar has announced the launch of the world's first regulatory framework for prediction markets, and Malta is exploring similar systems, meaning that as long as project parties are willing to accept regulation and disclose operating party and participant information, there is an opportunity to continue providing tools for "trading the future" under the guise of legitimate contractual products.

Between these two paths, it is not the users but the project parties that are truly forced to make choices. If they insist on remaining in the "grey internet," platforms like Polymarket face an increasingly shrinking access window and a high-pressure environment where contract design is scrutinized by ESMA under the lens of binary options; if they pivot toward frameworks in Gibraltar, Malta, and other pilot regions, they will incur higher compliance costs—from licensing applications to rewriting product structures and risk disclosures—but gain predictable jurisdictions and more stable institutional collaboration spaces. The route choices in different jurisdictions are slicing the landscape of prediction agreements into two: one section is the "high-risk applications" surrounded by blacklists and blockades, while the other is "qualified products" integrated into licensing systems but carefully balancing between capital markets and regulatory terms. The future industry center will determine which side it gravitates towards, becoming a new regulatory contest in itself.

Binance Capital Connect Compliance Ticket

Outside the licensing route, Binance has chosen to create a "capital market entry ticket" through product structure. The EIO under Capital Connect is described as the first portfolio market in the industry that connects professional trading teams and institutional investors, with official statements positioning it as "providing compliant pathways for trading teams and demonstrating performance records to institutional investors." On the surface, this is a platform for performance display rather than a fundraising tool; in substance, it builds matchmaking relationships between trading teams and institutions using a narrative of "show-only, not recommend" and "record-only, not promise," attempting to distance itself from the role of securities issuer or investment advisor as much as possible. Especially since the brief explicitly does not mention any regulatory agency that has approved this model, this narrative design has almost become the only visible risk buffer for the platform.

The problem lies in the fact that in most jurisdictions, systematically showcasing asset management or trading portfolios to institutions may touch the boundaries of securities, investment advisory, or fund licenses—the regulators are not concerned with how the platform is named, but rather whether it has functionally completed "filtering and promoting specific strategies for specific investors." Once the EIO, as a "portfolio market," is deemed to constitute substantive product marketing or advisory activities in matchmaking, filtering, or communication processes, it is difficult to remain within the pure technical platform narrative framework. Binance's actions clearly indicate that the leading platforms are proactively positioning themselves at the compliance entry of capital markets, but the true factor determining whether this "compliance ticket" is effective is not the wording in the announcement, but whether local licensing regulators are willing to view it as an information intermediary or a financial product distribution channel.

Hyperliquid Steps into Regulatory Meeting Room to Probe Boundaries

In contrast to Binance's "making products" at the edges of the licensing framework, Hyperliquid has chosen to step directly into the regulatory meeting room. The briefing states that Hyperliquid's policy center has held a meeting with the U.S. SEC's cryptocurrency task force around regulatory frameworks but has not disclosed specific dates or locations, nor has it explicitly forbidden outsiders from fabricating any "reached agreements" or regulatory conclusions. For a DeFi-native platform centered on on-chain perpetual contracts and closely tied to derivatives regulation, this action carries significant signaling weight: it is no longer solely relying on smart contracts and decentralized narratives to hedge risks but acknowledges that U.S. regulatory boundaries will genuinely impact its product design and market organization.

Due to the lack of meeting details, the outside world can only infer possible core topics from the roles of both sides. The SEC's cryptocurrency task force has been focused on unlicensed trading, token attribute identification, and investor protection, while Hyperliquid is highly "native" in de-custody, on-chain matchmaking, and high-leverage derivatives, thus naturally being questioned about whether "de-custody" truly means not assuming intermediary responsibilities in the eyes of regulators, what type of product the on-chain perpetual contract should be viewed as under existing securities and futures paradigms, and whether these designs could lead to amplified structural market risks. No public conclusions were released from the meeting, but the proactive entry of DeFi platforms into the dialogue scene has rewritten the previous industry norm of "code as boundary," marking that leading on-chain derivatives projects are beginning to rewrite their business boundaries using compliance expectations.

Upbit Lobbying and Johor Red Lines Intertwined

If we say that on-chain derivative projects stepping into regulatory meeting rooms signify "positive contact," the South Korean exchange Upbit has chosen a more traditional but equally crucial path: placing itself on the lobbying list in Washington. In mid-July 2026, Upbit announced its joining of the U.S. Digital Chamber of Commerce, established in 2014, which is regarded as one of the largest lobbying organizations for the digital asset industry globally, representing the industry in discussions on U.S. regulation and legislation, and lobbying regulatory agencies including the SEC. For a non-U.S. platform, choosing to engage through industry associations rather than confronting regulatory agencies individually often means hoping to influence legislative texts, regulatory details, and enforcement interpretations during the rule formation stage, thus vying for space for its business within the compliance framework. The significance of Upbit's membership lies not in a specific product but in acknowledging that future U.S. rules will shape the global business landscape and attempting to participate in the drawing of that landscape through lobbying.

In parallel with Upbit's attempt to enter U.S. policy circles, the Johor state government in Malaysia drew red lines in another way. Between July 13 and 15, Johor demanded an investigation into the Network School project, with the officially disclosed reason relating to the involvement of Israeli citizens. The investigation results have not been made public, and there has been no further detailed official statement. This action extended the project's risk from "is the business form compliant" to "do the identities of participants touch sensitive areas of geopolitical and sanction complexities," highlighting that in certain jurisdictions, compliance reviews may take into account political positions, sanction lists, and cross-border relationships. With lobbying and investigation lying side by side, the boundaries of industry behavior are being redrawn: on one end, exchanges try to pre-shape rules at the regulatory legislative level by joining the U.S. Digital Chamber of Commerce; on the other, projects directly confront geopolitical and potential sanction compliance pressures in local government reviews, requiring both platforms and projects to manage their discourse power on the regulatory negotiation table and the real-world political risks simultaneously to avoid sliding from "discussable business models" into "investigated risk subjects."

Compliance Competition Accelerates Project Battlefield Selection

This week's several seemingly discrete pieces of news, in fact, sketch out a global regulatory map coexisting with "blocking, frameworks, lobbying, and dialogue": the Czech Republic has blocked Polymarket following Italy and the Netherlands, coordinating with ESMA's warning regarding the securities characteristics of event contracts, pushing the prediction market toward gambling classification and financial product regulation's high-pressure channels within the EU; Gibraltar and Malta provide dedicated frameworks for similar businesses, allowing compliance to be a chosen route rather than passive defense; Binance competes for institutional entry with Capital Connect and the EIO model, Hyperliquid directly engages in dialogue with the SEC's cryptocurrency task force, Upbit enters the lobbying battlefield by joining the U.S. Digital Chamber of Commerce, while the Johor government's investigation into the Network School brings geopolitical and potential sanction risks back to the project's realistic constraints. Platforms and projects are being forced to make more detailed "battlefield" decisions: whether to accept the blockades and gambling classifications of certain jurisdictions, or to bet on offshore licenses with clear frameworks, whether to align product design with portfolio and hedging tools, or to proactively lower securities concerns in prediction narratives and contract structures; before regulatory clarity further materializes, those who can maintain high sensitivity to gambling classifications, securities attributes, and geopolitical risks amid jurisdictional choices, product forms, and compliance paths are more likely to remain at the table during the next round of regulatory reshaping rather than being written into the blockade list.

Join our community, let's discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。