Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 31, 2026 · 3:54 AM ET

Minnesota Senate pricing moves higher

The Democratic outcome in the Minnesota Senate race was priced at 90% on Kalshi, up 7 points over seven days, according to DeFi Rate’s 2026 midterms hub.

The supplied summary places the race among the week’s biggest movers, but cuts off before providing the full comparison. It does not explain what drove the change.

The item carries a publication timestamp of Oct 31, 2026 · 3:54 AM ET. The hub was crawled Oct. 31, 07:58 UTC, and its latest observation is listed as Oct. 31, 3:55 AM ET—one minute after the item’s publication time.

The separate source excerpt also displays a Polymarket purchase price of 72¢ and indicates that a $100 purchase on Kalshi at the ask would return $141 if correct, before fees. The excerpt does not identify the contracts behind those figures, so they cannot reliably be compared with the Minnesota Democratic outcome’s reported 90% price.

What it means for prediction markets

• The reported 7-point weekly increase indicates a shift toward the Democratic outcome in Kalshi’s Minnesota Senate market; it does not establish why traders repriced it.
• The unidentified 72¢ Polymarket price and Kalshi payout example do not establish a cross-platform pricing gap for this race.
• The limited excerpt provides no trading-volume or liquidity data with which to assess the depth behind the move.

Australia’s corporate regulator has questioned whether retail prediction markets serve the public interest, characterizing their contracts as wagers rather than clearly established investment products. The Friday statement, attributed to Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Chair Sarah Court, did not announce a formal ban, according to Bitcoin News.

ASIC draws a parallel with binary options

ASIC described event contracts as highly speculative, with payouts typically depending entirely on whether an event happens. It compared that structure with binary options, whose sale to Australian retail clients was banned in 2021. That prohibition was later extended to October 2031 after data showed that up to 77% of retail clients lost money.

The regulator also questioned the investment purpose of contracts tied to tomorrow’s weather or a sports team’s result and winning margin. Alongside those concerns, ASIC identified potential misuse of confidential information, manipulation and disagreements over settlement outcomes. Under section 798A of the Corporations Act 2001, the regulator must assess the public interest when considering an Australian market license.

No applications, but existing restrictions matter

Court told a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday that no prediction market operator had applied to operate in Australia and that an application would encounter demanding scrutiny, Bloomberg reported, as cited by Bitcoin News. ASIC’s Moneysmart website says Australia has no prediction market licensed as a financial market and warns that users are likelier to lose money than earn it.

ASIC said Australians using offshore prediction markets lack protections under Australian law, while financial services licensees providing access remain subject to their licensing obligations. Separately, the Australian Communications and Media Authority blocked Polymarket in August 2025 as an illegal gambling service under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

International approaches remain divided

According to Bitcoin News, the U.S. remains substantially more permissive than most other major markets despite state-level regulatory disputes. ASIC pointed to restrictions in parts of Europe and the U.K. In July, the European Securities and Markets Authority said many event contracts were already covered by EU retail binary-options bans; Gibraltar introduced a dedicated prediction-market regulatory framework that same month. Meanwhile, Kalshi said on Thursday that it had raised $1 billion at a $40 billion valuation.

What it means for prediction markets

• Skepticism is not a new blanket ban. ASIC’s statement signals a difficult licensing path, but no operator has yet submitted an application.
• Contract classification is central. ASIC’s comparison with binary options puts payout structure and investment purpose at the heart of its concerns.
• Access and authorization are distinct. Offshore availability does not establish Australian financial-market licensing or local legal protections; Polymarket is already blocked.
• Global expansion faces uneven rules. Australia’s stance, EU restrictions and Gibraltar’s dedicated framework illustrate materially different regulatory routes for operators.