From the journal

South Africa's prediction markets sit in a regulatory grey zone

An ENS analysis maps how prediction market contracts in South Africa cut across crypto regulation, exchange control and the law of derivatives, exposing a gap that regulators have yet to close.

2 min read

A new analysis by ENS sets out a problem that regulators across emerging markets are starting to face. Prediction markets, where users buy contracts that pay out based on the outcome of an event, do not fit cleanly inside South Africa's existing legal categories.

The starting point: crypto as a financial product

In 2022, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority declared crypto assets to be financial products under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act. That move brought intermediation services for crypto into the conduct of business framework. It did not address what happens when a token is also a contract on a future event.

Three regimes pull on the same product

ENS argues that prediction markets sit at the intersection of three legal regimes. The first is the crypto regulatory framework. The second is the exchange control regime, which still covers cross border flows of value. The third is the law of derivatives, including the OTC derivative provider regime under the Financial Markets Act.

The analytical difficulty is that prediction market contracts can look like several things at once. They can look like tokens, since they sit on a public chain. They can look like wagers, since the payout depends on a binary event. And they can look like derivatives, since the holder takes a position on a future state of the world.

The supervisor depends on the characterisation

Each characterisation pulls in a different supervisor and a different rulebook. A pure crypto reading puts intermediaries inside the FSCA conduct perimeter. A derivatives reading brings the platform inside the OTC derivative provider regime. A gambling reading activates provincial gambling boards rather than financial regulators.

Practical takeaway for platforms

For platforms targeting South African users, the practical consequence is that there is no single licence that clearly covers a prediction market business. Operators should obtain legal opinions on each leg of the contract. They should monitor FSCA conduct standards. They should engage early with the South African Reserve Bank where cross border flows are involved. Legislative clarification is likely to follow market activity rather than precede it.

Prediction MarketsSouth AfricaFSCA

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).