Dutch users are circumventing Polymarket’s February ban by the Dutch Gaming Authority (KSA) through alternative prediction market platforms including Kalshi, Hyperliquid, and Interactive Brokers. The regulatory crackdown, which targeted the leading US-based prediction market, has not stopped Dutch retail traders from accessing prediction markets—it has merely fragmented their options across jurisdictions with weaker or disputed oversight.
KSA Expands Scope Beyond Polymarket
The Dutch Gaming Authority did not limit enforcement to Polymarket alone. A KSA spokesperson warned that “websites similar to Polymarket also fall under our supervision and can therefore be sanctioned by us.” The February ban marked the opening move in a global regulatory assault on prediction markets. Brazil followed with plans to shut down 27 prediction platforms in a single action. France, Italy, Singapore, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, and Portugal have all imposed blocks or penalties on prediction market operators. The CFTC has filed lawsuits against five US states—Illinois, Arizona, Connecticut, New York, and Wisconsin—over jurisdiction of prediction market regulation. This fragmented enforcement creates arbitrage opportunities for users willing to route trades through offshore venues.
User Migration and Platform Claims
Interactive Brokers has positioned itself as compliant by claiming oversight from the Irish central bank. However, the Irish central bank told the Dutch financial newspaper FD it had “no knowledge of this arrangement” and referred inquiries to the Irish gambling authority. This dispute over regulatory legitimacy mirrors a broader pattern: platforms claim compliance while regulators deny knowledge or authority. London Business School research published in April 2026 found that only 3% of prediction market participants generate consistent profits, while 70% lose money. No public data exists on the number of Dutch users now routing trades through Kalshi, Hyperliquid, or Interactive Brokers following the Polymarket ban. Kalshi and Hyperliquid have not responded to requests for comment on their Dutch user bases.
Structural Weakness in Regulatory Response
Prediction market regulation remains fragmented across jurisdictions, creating structural gaps that users exploit. The CFTC’s lawsuit against five US states reflects competing claims over regulatory authority within the US alone. Venture capital firm a16z supports federal CFTC jurisdiction, signaling that capital will back the regulatory outcome most favorable to platform operations at scale. Insider trading concerns have surfaced: anonymous traders correctly bet on a US Iran attack and a Venezuelan kidnapping attempt before public disclosure. This pattern suggests prediction markets may function as real-time intelligence markets—a feature regulators view as dangerous and users view as valuable.
Enforcement Gaps and Next Steps
The KSA’s warning that similar platforms “can therefore be sanctioned” relies on users and platforms accepting its authority. Neither Kalshi nor Hyperliquid has announced compliance measures or user restrictions in the Netherlands. Interactive Brokers’ claim of Irish oversight remains unverified. Without coordinated international enforcement or technical barriers to access, the Polymarket ban has become a regulatory statement rather than an operational boundary. The next pressure point will be whether regulators move from platform warnings to user-level enforcement or financial institution restrictions on deposits and withdrawals.
