Policy & Regulation
Brierly studies how event-contract rules affect settlement integrity. This page preserves Brierly's regulatory filing and summarizes the drafting principles behind its policy position: contract terms should be resolvable, reproducible, and independently reviewable.
Filings & comments
Comment on Proposed Rule — Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations (RIN 3038-AF65; 91 FR 35806)Submitted to the CFTC · 2026-06-18
An independent, methodology-public settlement-risk standard would let public-interest determinations turn on whether a contract is resolvable, not on what it is about. Grounded in the coded record of 2025–26 event-market settlement disputes.
Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations · RIN 3038-AF65 · 91 FR 35806 (published June 12, 2026) · comments due July 27, 2026
Comments are filed by the firm, with counsel, on regulations.gov under the docket for RIN 3038-AF65. The repository records a June 18, 2026 submission, but does not include a docket tracking ID; confirm the public-docket record before relying on that status.
Why independence
Exchanges and operators are responsible for designing, approving, and listing contracts. An independent reviewer can assess the resulting language without having listings to defend or market outcomes to promote. That review complements venue compliance, legal review, surveillance, and adjudication; it does not replace them or make Brierly a regulator.
The long form of this argument lives on About (the firm's operating principles) and in the independence policy.
What a settlement-integrity standard should require
five drafting requirements, each scored by the published RuleScore methodology
Settlement should key on a single, named, official record — a government release, a governing body's published result, a designated index — not on “consensus of credible reporting” or a requirement that two parties both confirm. The most expensive disputes in the record are source disputes: a contract that settles on what the press prints, or on a confirmation one party never gives, has no canonical answer.
Each load-bearing word — “suit,” “invasion,” “ban,” “perform,” “meet,” “mention” — should be defined in the contract, for the purposes of that contract. Undefined operative terms are the single largest dispute family in the coded record.
A hard cutoff with a timezone, and a clear answer to whether settlement turns on when the event occurred or when it was disclosed. The sourced case studies include an event-time-versus-disclosure-time dispute involving approximately $85 million in reported volume.
For any numeric threshold: explicit boundary handling (“at or above”), a rounding rule, and — for revision-prone figures like viewership, CPI, or GDP — a controlling-print rule stating that the first official figure controls and later revisions do not.
An exhaustive statement of what happens on a tie, cancellation, or postponement, and a time-boxed, rules-bound dispute process — not unilateral “sole discretion” or retroactive “market context.” Discretionary adjudication is where contested settlements are decided after the fact.
This page preserves Brierly's policy position and the submitted comment text. The filing draws on the sourced
Dispute Database, cited reporting, and regulatory primary sources. Brierly is not a government regulator or law firm, and this is not legal advice.