Polymarket isn't just trying to come home to the U.S.—it's reportedly already planning the renovations. The prediction market giant is said to have applied for a futures commission merchant (FCM) license, a key step toward offering margin trading to U.S. users.

If approved, traders could open larger positions without putting up the full amount of cash upfront, bringing Polymarket a little closer to the tools institutional investors expect. The move follows Kalshi's own push into margin infrastructure.

The "prediction markets versus gambling" debate made its way to CNBC today, with former Nevada Senator and Kalshi adviser Dean Heller firmly planting his flag on one side. 

Heller argued there's still "so much misinformation" surrounding event contracts, describing prediction markets as transparent, consumer-friendly, and heavily regulated by the CFTC. Pointing to Kalshi's four-year approval process and ongoing regulatory oversight, he rejected claims that the industry operates without supervision, calling that assertion "flat out false." 

"There is so much misinformation out there," says Fmr. Nevada Senator & Kalshi Advisor Dean Heller of prediction markets. "It's a platform that's transparent, consumer friendly and it is regulated." https://t.co/72koOuxcWc pic.twitter.com/GBTXUnDSao

The CFTC has approved Optex Markets to operate as a designated contract market, making it the latest federally regulated prediction market exchange in the U.S. The approval came just six months after Optex applied, continuing a noticeably faster pace for exchange approvals under the current administration. 

New Mexico isn't buying Kalshi's argument that this fight belongs in federal court. The state's Attorney General has formally asked a federal judge to send its lawsuit back to state court, arguing the case is about enforcing New Mexico's gambling laws—not federal commodities law.

In the filing, New Mexico points out that courts in Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, and Michigan have already rejected similar attempts by Kalshi to remove state enforcement actions to federal court, calling the company's removal arguments a losing strategy. 

"Each theory Kalshi asserts here does not justify removal. Each has been rejected by other federal district courts."