How Long Will Binary Options Last?

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

Binary options, characterized by their simple ‘yes/no’ structure and fixed payouts, have faced intense regulatory scrutiny globally, severely impacting their long-term viability as a financial product for retail investors. Driven by widespread investor harm, pervasive fraudulent activities associated with unregulated platforms, and inherent product characteristics deemed unsuitable for retail clients, major financial jurisdictions including the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have implemented outright bans or stringent restrictions. While binary options remain legally tradable under strict regulation on designated exchanges within the United States, and an unregulated offshore market persists, the overwhelming international regulatory trend points towards prohibition for the retail segment. The product’s fundamental structure, often leading to negative expected returns and conflicts of interest, coupled with significant reputational damage, suggests a limited future. Emerging alternatives, such as regulated event contracts, may capture some of the speculative demand previously met by binary options, but these too are attracting regulatory examination. Overall, the future availability and viability of traditional binary options as a mainstream financial product for retail investors in major regulated markets appear severely diminished.

2. Understanding Binary Options: Simplicity and Structure

Binary options represent a distinct category of financial derivatives, fundamentally differing from traditional options in their structure, payout, and typical trading environment. Their core identity lies in a simplified proposition regarding future market movements or event outcomes.

related posts : Best Binary Options Brokers (in 2025)

Defining the Binary Proposition: Mechanics, Underlying Assets, Expiry

At its heart, a binary option is a contract based on a simple ‘yes or no’ question concerning the future state of an underlying asset or event.¹ This underlying interest can encompass a wide range of categories, including individual stocks, stock indices (like the S&P 500), foreign exchange (forex) currency pairs (like EUR/USD), commodities (such as gold or oil), or even specific event outcomes like economic data releases or geopolitical events.¹

The trading mechanic involves predicting whether the price or value of this underlying asset will be above or below a predetermined level, known as the ‘strike price’, at a specific future point in time, referred to as the ‘expiry time’.¹ Common contract types built around this core mechanic include:

High/Low (or Call/Put) Options: The most prevalent type, where the trader predicts if the asset’s price will finish above (Call/High) or below (Put/Low) the strike price at expiry.⁷
Touch/No Touch Options: The payout depends on whether the asset’s price reaches (touches) a specific target level at least once before expiry (Touch) or fails to reach that level (No Touch).⁷
Range (or Boundary) Options: The trader predicts whether the asset’s price will finish within or outside a predefined price range at expiry.⁷
Ladder Options: These involve multiple strike prices set at different levels (‘rungs’), each offering potentially different payouts.⁷

A critical distinction is that binary options typically do not grant the holder the right or obligation to buy or sell the actual underlying asset, unlike traditional options.¹ The contract is purely a proposition on price movement or event outcome, usually settled in cash based on whether the prediction was correct.⁹ The expiry times for these contracts are predetermined and can be extremely short, ranging from just 30 or 60 seconds, to minutes, hours, or sometimes days.³

The All-or-Nothing Payout Structure

The defining characteristic of a binary option is its ‘all-or-nothing’ payout structure.¹ If the trader’s prediction at the expiry time proves correct (the option expires ‘in the money’), they receive a fixed, predetermined payout.¹ This payout is often presented as a percentage of the initial investment, commonly ranging from 60% to 90%.¹ Conversely, if the prediction is incorrect (the option expires ‘out of the money’), the trader typically loses their entire invested amount, or potentially a very large percentage of it, with some platforms offering a minimal return (e.g., 5%) in certain cases.¹

Once the option is purchased, there is generally no further decision for the trader to make regarding exercise; the option exercises automatically at expiry, and the gain or loss is credited or debited to the trader’s account.² Some platforms may allow closing a position before expiry, usually at a reduced payout or loss.²

Distinguishing Binary Options from Traditional Financial Options

While both are derivatives, binary options differ significantly from standard (‘vanilla’) exchange-traded options.² Vanilla options grant the holder the right (but not the obligation) to buy or sell an underlying asset at a specific price on or before a certain date, offering the potential for ownership.² Their profit potential is variable and depends on the extent of the underlying asset’s price movement relative to the strike price, although the maximum risk for buyers is limited to the premium paid.² In contrast, binary options offer no ownership potential and have a fixed, capped payout regardless of how far the price moves beyond the strike, with the risk fixed at the investment amount.²

Furthermore, vanilla options are typically traded on regulated exchanges, offering greater transparency, standardization, and reduced counterparty risk through central clearinghouses.² Binary options, particularly those that proliferated online, are often traded over-the-counter (OTC) directly with a broker acting as the counterparty, frequently on platforms operating outside major regulatory oversight, which significantly increases risks related to fraud and broker solvency.²

The apparent simplicity of the binary option’s ‘yes/no’ structure and fixed outcome is a key part of its appeal, particularly to novice traders.¹ However, this surface simplicity masks significant underlying complexities related to probability assessment, the impact of volatility, and the often unfavorable payout structures offered by providers. Regulators have consistently highlighted the difficulty for retail investors to accurately value these instruments and understand the inherent risks, contrasting sharply with the product’s marketing emphasis on ease of use.⁵ Moreover, unlike traditional options which have well-established uses for hedging portfolio risks, binary options are widely viewed by regulators as lacking a clear, legitimate investment or hedging purpose for retail clients, positioning them primarily as speculative instruments.⁵ This perception contributes significantly to the harsher regulatory stance they have faced compared to other derivatives.

3. The Appeal and Inherent Dangers

The rapid rise in popularity of binary options, particularly among retail investors, can be attributed to several perceived advantages, which regulators and analysts argue obscure significant inherent dangers.

Why Binary Options Gained Traction: Perceived Simplicity and Fixed Outcomes

The primary allure of binary options lies in their straightforward conceptual framework: a simple directional bet (up or down, yes or no) with a known potential profit and a clearly defined maximum loss (the amount invested) from the outset.¹ This fixed-risk, fixed-reward structure appears less intimidating than the variable outcomes and margin calls associated with other leveraged products.³ Accessibility further fueled their growth, with numerous online platforms offering easy account opening, low minimum deposit requirements, and the ability to trade around the clock on a variety of global assets.³ The potential for quick results, given the very short expiry times available (sometimes mere seconds or minutes), also appealed to traders seeking rapid turnover.¹

Unpacking the Risks: High Loss Potential, Complexity vs. Simplicity, Negative Expected Returns, and Conflicts of Interest

Despite the appeal, binary options carry substantial risks that have led to significant investor harm and regulatory intervention.

High Loss Potential: The fundamental “all-or-nothing” structure means that an incorrect prediction results in the loss of the entire (or nearly entire) amount wagered on that trade.¹ Compounding this is the empirical evidence gathered by regulators across multiple jurisdictions (EU, UK, Australia, Ireland) showing that a large majority of retail clients—often between 74% and 89%—consistently lose money trading these products.⁶ Aggregate losses reported reached millions within relatively short periods.⁶
Complexity vs. Simplicity: The perceived simplicity is misleading. Accurately pricing binary options and assessing the probability of success requires understanding factors like volatility, time decay, and the underlying asset’s behavior, often within extremely short timeframes.¹ Many OTC providers use opaque pricing models, making it difficult for retail clients to verify fair value or understand how payouts are calculated.⁵ This information asymmetry favors the provider.
Negative Expected Returns: A critical structural flaw identified by regulators is the typical payout structure offered by OTC brokers.⁵ When a winning trade pays out less than 100% profit (e.g., 70-90%), while a losing trade results in a 100% loss of the stake, the mathematical expectation for the trader is negative.¹⁶ This means that even with a 50% win rate, a trader will lose money over time. To break even, a trader needs a win rate significantly higher than 50% (estimated between 52-59% depending on the payout percentage), a difficult feat to achieve consistently, especially in short-term speculation.⁸ This structure inherently stacks the odds against the retail client. The marketing focus on high percentage payouts (e.g., 70-90%) creates an illusion of high potential returns ³, obscuring the fact that the probability-weighted outcome is often negative due to the asymmetric loss potential.⁸ Regulators have explicitly warned about platforms overstating average returns ¹⁶, further contributing to this misleading perception.
Conflicts of Interest: In the prevalent OTC model, the broker typically acts as the direct counterparty to the client’s trade.¹³ This means the broker profits directly from the client’s losses.⁹ This inherent conflict of interest creates incentives for unethical practices, such as manipulating price feeds or expiry times to ensure client trades end ‘out of the money’.¹⁶
Addictive Nature: The short-term nature of the contracts, combined with the simple win/loss outcome, has been compared to gambling and can foster addictive trading behavior, leading to rapid and significant cumulative losses.⁹

Beyond the risks inherent in the product structure, the dangers faced by retail investors have been significantly magnified by the conduct of many providers, particularly those operating offshore and without regulatory oversight. Numerous complaints and regulatory warnings detail fraudulent activities such as refusing to process withdrawals, demanding excessive fees, stealing personal information (identity theft), and actively manipulating trading software to generate losing trades.¹⁰ Aggressive and misleading marketing campaigns further exacerbate the risks by attracting vulnerable individuals with unrealistic promises of high returns.⁹ The combination of a structurally disadvantageous product and predatory platform behavior created a toxic environment for retail participants.

4. A Brief History: From Emergence to Scrutiny

The trajectory of binary options trading evolved rapidly from niche exchange-traded instruments to a globally accessible, yet often problematic, online phenomenon.

Origins and Rise in the Post-Crisis Era (Post-2008)

While precursors existed, the modern era of binary options trading gained significant momentum in 2008 when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved their listing as tradable contracts on regulated exchanges.² Exchanges like the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) and the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) began offering binary contracts, followed by the North American Derivatives Exchange (Nadex), which became a key venue for regulated binary options in the US.² Earlier examples include electronically traded binary options on FOMC Target Rate contracts launched by the CBOT in 2006, though these are no longer traded.³⁰

Almost concurrently, and particularly gaining steam from 2008-2009 onwards, a wave of online, often unregulated, Over-The-Counter (OTC) platforms emerged, aggressively marketing simplified binary options directly to retail investors globally.² This growth coincided with the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, a period when some investors sought alternative, seemingly simpler investment avenues.²⁹ The proliferation of these platforms was significantly aided by technology providers like SpotOption (founded in 2010), which offered “white label” solutions enabling numerous entities to quickly set up branded binary options brokerages, often with minimal regulatory adherence.¹⁷

The Proliferation of Online Platforms and Regulatory Challenges

The rapid expansion of internet-based binary options trading created significant challenges for regulators. Many of these platforms operated from offshore jurisdictions, deliberately positioning themselves outside the direct oversight of regulators in major markets like the US, EU, UK, or Australia.² This cross-border nature made supervision and enforcement difficult.⁵

Early regulatory responses varied. In 2012, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) became one of the first EU regulators to classify binary options as financial instruments under MiFID rules, requiring platforms based there to obtain licenses.¹² However, the sheer volume of brokers based in Cyprus and ongoing issues with compliance and fraudulent behavior demonstrated the limitations of this initial approach. CySEC issued numerous warnings and fines against brokers, including prominent names like Banc De Binary, for violations including illegal solicitation of clients in restricted jurisdictions like the US.²⁹

As investor complaints surged globally regarding fraudulent practices—including refusal to pay out winnings, identity theft, and rigged trading software—regulators like the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the SEC began issuing stronger warnings and taking enforcement actions.¹⁰ Joint investor alerts were issued, cautioning the public about the risks of unregistered platforms.¹⁶ The FBI also launched investigations into binary options fraud, highlighting its scale and links to organized crime.³¹

This period clearly illustrates a significant lag between the rapid technological deployment and global marketing of online binary options and the development of effective, coordinated regulatory responses. The market’s structure, heavily reliant on easily deployable online platforms often based in loosely regulated offshore jurisdictions, allowed fraudulent activities to flourish for several years before comprehensive bans and restrictions were implemented in major financial centers (primarily between 2017 and 2021).⁵ This offshore model presented a fundamental challenge, hindering effective supervision, enforcement, and investor redress for national regulators dealing with entities operating beyond their direct jurisdictional reach.⁵

5. The Global Regulatory Clampdown

Faced with mounting evidence of widespread investor harm and fraudulent activity, financial regulators across major developed markets initiated a coordinated clampdown on the retail binary options industry, leading to near-uniform prohibition or severe restriction outside the specific context of regulated US exchanges.

The Catalyst: Widespread Fraud and Mounting Investor Complaints

The primary impetus for regulatory intervention was the overwhelming number of complaints from retail investors who had suffered significant financial losses and fallen victim to fraudulent schemes operated through online binary options platforms.⁶ Common complaints included platforms refusing to credit accounts or process withdrawals, brokers encouraging excessive deposits, identity theft through the improper collection of personal data, and the manipulation of trading software to ensure customer losses.¹⁰ The scale of the problem was substantial, with the FBI estimating annual global losses at $10 billion ³¹, UK authorities reporting £59.4 million in losses from scams between 2012 and 2017 ²⁵, and Australian regulators finding aggregate net losses of $14 million over just 13 months prior to their ban.⁶

Jurisdictional Deep Dive: Regulatory Actions and Rationales

Regulators in key financial centers took decisive action, primarily targeting the offering of binary options to retail clients:

European Union (ESMA and National Bans): The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) utilized its product intervention powers under MiFIR legislation to implement an EU-wide temporary ban on the marketing, distribution, and sale of binary options to retail clients, effective from July 2, 2018.⁵ This temporary ban was renewed several times.⁵⁶ ESMA cited significant investor protection concerns stemming from the products’ complexity, lack of transparency, structural negative expected return, inherent conflicts of interest between providers and clients, and documented high loss rates for retail investors.⁵ Following ESMA’s temporary measures, national competent authorities (NCAs) in numerous EU member states, including Germany (BaFin), France (AMF), Belgium (FSMA), Ireland, the Netherlands, and others, implemented permanent national bans or restrictions, solidifying the prohibition across much of the EU.⁵
United Kingdom (FCA’s Permanent Ban): The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed a permanent ban on the sale, marketing, and distribution of all binary options to retail consumers by firms acting in or from the UK, effective April 2, 2019.¹³ The FCA echoed ESMA’s concerns, citing the inherent risks of the products, poor conduct by selling firms leading to large and unexpected consumer losses, and explicitly labelling binary options as “gambling products dressed up as financial instruments”.¹³ Notably, the FCA’s permanent ban extended to ‘securitised binary options’, a category initially excluded from ESMA’s temporary ban, arguing they posed the same risks to investors.¹³
United States (CFTC/SEC Regulation and Limited Availability): The US maintains a different regulatory approach. Binary options are legal but only if traded on exchanges regulated by the CFTC (as Designated Contract Markets – DCMs) or the SEC.² Only a small number of exchanges, such as Nadex, CME Group (offering similar ‘event contracts’), and Cantor Exchange, are currently authorized to offer these products.³ The CFTC and SEC actively pursue enforcement actions against the numerous off-exchange platforms, often based overseas, that illegally solicit US customers.¹⁶ The CFTC maintains a Registration Deficient (RED) List to warn investors about unregistered foreign entities believed to be targeting US residents.²⁷
Australia (ASIC’s Long-Term Ban): The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) used its product intervention powers to ban the issue and distribution of binary options to retail clients, effective May 3, 2021.⁶ Finding the initial ban effective in preventing retail losses, ASIC extended it until October 1, 2031.⁶ ASIC’s rationale focused on the significant detriment caused to retail clients, deeming binary options harmful, high-risk products unsuitable for investment due to their ‘all-or-nothing’ structure, very short contract durations, negative expected returns, and the fact that approximately 80% of retail clients lost money trading them.⁶
Canada (CSA Restrictions): The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), representing provincial and territorial regulators (excluding British Columbia initially, though BC also took action), implemented a coordinated prohibition (Multilateral Instrument 91-102) effective December 12, 2017.³² This rule makes it illegal to advertise, offer, sell, or otherwise trade binary options with a term to maturity of less than 30 days with any individual.³¹ The CSA identified binary options as the “leading type of investment fraud facing Canadians,” citing their risky characteristics, the prevalence of offshore scams, potential for identity theft, and the fact that no firms are registered to legally offer these products in Canada.¹⁰

The following table summarizes the regulatory status in these key markets:

Table 1: Regulatory Status of Retail Binary Options in Major Markets

Jurisdiction	Primary Regulatory Body(ies)	Status for Retail Investors	Key Rationale Cited	Effective Date / Status
European Union (EU)	ESMA / National NCAs	Banned (initially temporary by ESMA, now permanent via NCAs)	Investor Protection, Complexity, Fraud Risk, Negative Expected Return, High Losses	July 2018 (ESMA), Ongoing (NCAs)
United Kingdom (UK)	FCA	Banned (Permanent, includes securitised)	Investor Protection, Inherent Risks, Poor Conduct, Fraud Risk, “Gambling Product”	April 2, 2019 (Permanent)
United States (US)	CFTC / SEC	Permitted ONLY on regulated exchanges (DCMs/Exchanges)	Exchange Regulation, Standardization, Clearing Mitigate Risks; OTC Illegal	Ongoing (Exchange-based)
Australia (AU)	ASIC	Banned (Product Intervention Order)	Significant Investor Detriment, High Risk, Unsuitable Characteristics, High Losses	May 3, 2021 (Extended to 2031)
Canada (CA)	CSA	Banned (<30 day expiry)	Leading Fraud Type, High Risk, Unsuitable Product, Offshore Scams, No Registrants	December 12, 2017

Source: Synthesized from ⁵

The actions taken across the EU, UK, Australia, and Canada demonstrate a strong regulatory consensus that OTC binary options pose unacceptable risks to retail investors. The convergence of rationale—focusing on investor protection, inherent product flaws, and pervasive fraud—underscores a shared assessment that these risks cannot be adequately managed through disclosure or conduct rules alone, necessitating prohibition. This contrasts with the US approach, which relies on the stringent controls of regulated exchange trading to mitigate risks. The deployment of product intervention powers by ESMA, FCA, and ASIC also signifies a regulatory evolution towards more proactive measures to prevent consumer harm from specific financial products deemed unsuitable, rather than reacting solely after losses have occurred.⁵

6. Core Rationale Behind Regulatory Interventions

The global regulatory push against binary options, particularly for retail clients, stems from a consistent set of deeply rooted concerns shared by authorities across diverse jurisdictions. These concerns collectively paint a picture of a product deemed fundamentally unsuitable and dangerous for the average investor.

Protecting Retail Investors from Significant Harm

The paramount objective cited by virtually all regulators imposing bans or restrictions is the protection of retail investors from significant financial harm.⁵ This concern is not theoretical; it is grounded in extensive evidence demonstrating that the vast majority of retail clients lose money when trading binary options.⁶ The scale of these losses, both individually and in aggregate, was deemed unacceptable and indicative of a market failing to serve investors’ interests. The focus is consistently on the retail segment, implying a recognition that these investors may lack the financial sophistication, resources, or risk tolerance necessary to navigate the complexities and dangers of binary options, especially when compared to professional or institutional traders.⁵

Addressing Product Complexity and Opacity

Regulators consistently point to the deceptive nature of binary options: while marketed as simple, they possess underlying complexities that make them difficult for retail investors to understand and value accurately.⁵ Concerns include the opacity of pricing mechanisms, particularly in the OTC market where the provider sets the price, the difficulty of assessing risk-reward profiles given extremely short durations, and the challenge of understanding how factors like volatility influence potential outcomes.¹³ This lack of transparency prevents investors from making genuinely informed decisions.⁵

Combating Fraudulent Practices and Illicit Operations

The pervasive fraud associated with the binary options industry, especially involving unregulated online platforms often based offshore, was a major catalyst for the regulatory clampdown.¹⁰ Regulators received floods of complaints detailing scams such as platforms refusing payouts, illicit use of client data for identity theft, and manipulation of trading software to generate artificial losses for clients.¹⁶ The difficulty in pursuing enforcement action against entities operating illegally from overseas jurisdictions further necessitated preventative measures like bans to protect domestic investors.²⁷ The documented links between parts of the industry and criminal syndicates underscored the severity of the issue.³¹

Concerns over Gambling-Like Characteristics

A recurring theme in regulatory commentary is the comparison of binary options trading to gambling rather than legitimate investing.¹ This comparison is based on several factors: the ‘all-or-nothing’ wager-like payout structure, the emphasis on very short-term outcomes (often minutes or seconds), the lack of a clear economic or hedging purpose, and observations of addictive or compulsive trading behavior among users.⁹ This perception reinforces the view that the product falls outside the realm of appropriate financial instruments for retail investment portfolios.

Ultimately, the regulatory decisions to ban or severely restrict retail binary options were not driven by a single factor but by a powerful combination of concerns. The inherent structural flaws of the product (complexity, negative expected return, conflicts of interest), the egregious conduct observed among many providers (fraud, manipulation, misleading marketing), and the devastating financial outcomes experienced by a large majority of retail participants created a compelling case for intervention that regulators in most major markets found impossible to ignore.

7. The Binary Options Market Today

Following the wave of regulatory interventions, the landscape for binary options trading has fundamentally changed, resulting in a starkly divided market.

Regulated vs. Unregulated Environments

The global market is now characterized by a significant bifurcation. On one hand, there is a drastically reduced, highly regulated space where binary options or similar products are permitted under strict oversight. On the other hand, a persistent, largely opaque, and high-risk unregulated market continues to operate, primarily through offshore online platforms.² The bans in the EU, UK, Australia, and Canada have effectively eliminated the regulated OTC retail market in those significant financial centers.⁶

Permitted Trading: US Exchanges (Nadex, CME Event Contracts)

The United States stands out as the primary major jurisdiction where binary options remain legally accessible to retail traders, but exclusively through regulated exchanges.²⁷ The CFTC oversees Designated Contract Markets (DCMs) that list these products. Key venues include Nadex (North American Derivatives Exchange), which specializes in binary options and related contracts, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), which has introduced ‘event contracts’ structured similarly to binary options.³ Cantor Exchange is also authorized.²⁷ Trading on these exchanges involves standardized contracts, central clearing (mitigating counterparty risk), full collateralization (traders must fund their maximum potential loss upfront), and regulatory oversight aimed at ensuring market integrity and investor protection.³

The Persistence and Risks of the Offshore Market

Despite bans in regulated jurisdictions, numerous online platforms continue to offer binary options, often targeting investors globally from offshore locations with weaker or non-existent financial regulation.¹⁰ These platforms represent the continuation of the model that drew intense regulatory criticism. Engaging with these unregulated entities carries significant risks, including the potential for fraud, non-payment of winnings, identity theft, and lack of legal recourse for investors.¹⁶ Jurisdictions like Vanuatu are sometimes marketed as locations for obtaining binary options brokerage licenses with relatively lower costs and requirements, while others like St. Vincent and the Grenadines reportedly do not require a specific license for FX/binary options brokers, further highlighting the fragmented and often lax nature of offshore regulation.⁷³

Availability for Professional vs. Retail Clients

In jurisdictions like the EU and UK where retail bans are in place, binary options may still be legally marketed, distributed, and sold to clients who meet the criteria to be classified as ‘professional clients’ under MiFID rules.³⁸ Elective professional classification often requires meeting specific thresholds related to trading experience, portfolio size, and/or professional status. Some brokers operating in or passporting into these regions may continue to offer binary options exclusively to this professional client segment.¹¹ However, the retail market, which was the primary driver of the industry’s growth and controversy, is now largely closed off in these regulated areas.

This divergence between the highly regulated US exchange model and the high-risk offshore OTC market creates a challenging environment for investors. It also presents opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where firms might structure their operations or target specific client types (like elective professionals) or jurisdictions with less stringent oversight to continue offering products similar to those banned elsewhere.²⁷ The emergence of regulated ‘event contracts’ in the US ⁶⁴ could also be viewed as an adaptation, offering binary-style speculation within a potentially different, albeit still scrutinized, regulatory framework.

8. Future Outlook: Viability in a Regulated World

Synthesizing the overwhelming regulatory consensus, the documented market impact, and the inherent characteristics of the product leads to a challenging outlook for the long-term viability of binary options, particularly for retail investors within established financial systems.

Synthesizing Regulatory Stance and Market Trends

The actions taken by major regulatory bodies in the EU, UK, Australia, and Canada represent a formidable and largely unified front against the offering of OTC binary options to retail clients.⁶ The rationale consistently points to fundamental flaws and unacceptable risks: high probability of investor loss, complexity masked by apparent simplicity, structural disadvantages like negative expected returns, inherent conflicts of interest in the OTC model, and a pervasive association with fraudulent operations.⁵ This regulatory stance has led to a significant contraction of the legitimate retail market in these jurisdictions, with firms ceasing operations or restricting offerings.¹³

Assessing Long-Term Viability as a Mainstream Product

Given the severity of the regulatory condemnations and the permanence of the bans implemented by authorities like the FCA and ASIC (extended to 2031), the long-term viability of traditional OTC binary options as a mainstream, regulated financial product for retail investors appears extremely low in these major markets.⁶ Regulators have labelled the product “inherently flawed” ²⁶, suggesting that the issues are seen as fundamental and not easily rectifiable through enhanced disclosure or conduct rules alone. The deep-seated association with fraud and gambling has inflicted severe reputational damage on the “binary option” brand.¹⁶ This negative perception makes it politically difficult and commercially challenging for regulators or legitimate financial institutions to endorse or reintroduce these products to the retail mainstream, even in potentially modified forms.

Potential Niche Existence (Regulated Contracts, Professional Clients)

While a mainstream retail future seems unlikely in most regulated markets, binary options may persist in specific niches. The US model demonstrates that trading can continue within the highly controlled environment of regulated exchanges like Nadex and CME, which feature standardization, central clearing, and direct regulatory oversight.²⁷ This structure addresses many of the core concerns associated with the OTC model, such as counterparty risk and lack of transparency. Additionally, in jurisdictions like the EU and UK, the product may remain available to sophisticated investors classified as professional clients, who are presumed to better understand and withstand the associated risks.³⁸ The unregulated offshore market, despite its risks, is also likely to persist as long as there is demand and avenues to reach investors, operating outside the effective control of major regulators.

The trajectory suggests that any future for binary-style speculation within regulated markets will likely necessitate a move away from the traditional opaque OTC broker model towards greater transparency, standardization, and the robust risk management frameworks offered by exchange trading and central clearing, as seen in the US.³

9. The Rise of Alternatives

As regulatory actions curtailed the availability of binary options for retail investors in many regions, the underlying demand for accessible, short-term, leveraged speculative instruments has not disappeared. Instead, activity appears to be migrating towards alternative products, which themselves are attracting varying degrees of regulatory attention.

Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and Spread Betting

Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and financial spread betting are leveraged derivative products that allow traders to speculate on the price movements of underlying assets (like forex, indices, commodities, and shares) without actually owning them.¹⁹ Like binary options, they offer leverage and the ability to profit from both rising and falling markets.⁷⁰ However, unlike the fixed all-or-nothing payout of binaries, the profit or loss from CFDs and spread bets is variable, depending on the extent of the price movement and the size of the position (or bet per point in spread betting).⁷⁰

CFDs and spread betting were often offered by the same brokers that provided binary options.¹⁵ While also considered high-risk for retail investors, regulators in the EU, UK, and Australia opted for restrictions (such as leverage limits, mandatory negative balance protection, and standardized risk warnings) rather than outright bans for retail clients.⁵ This suggests a regulatory view that, while risky, the mechanisms of CFDs and spread betting might be manageable with strict controls, unlike binary options. However, CFDs remain prohibited for retail clients in the US.¹⁹ Spread betting enjoys a unique regulatory status in the UK and Ireland, often treated as betting and thus exempt from capital gains tax, adding to its appeal in those markets.¹⁹

Event Contracts: The New Frontier? (e.g., Kalshi, CME)

A more recent development, particularly in the US, is the emergence of regulated ‘event contracts’ or ‘event futures’.34 These contracts allow traders to speculate on the outcome of specific, verifiable ‘yes/no’ events, such as economic data releases (e.g., inflation rates, unemployment figures), political election results, or even cultural events like award winners.3 They typically settle at a fixed value (e.g., $1 or $100) if the specified outcome occurs and $0 if it does not, mirroring the binary payout structure.3

Platforms like Kalshi and exchanges like the CME Group offer these contracts under CFTC regulation.27 Their proponents argue they serve purposes like hedging event-specific risks and facilitating price discovery on the likelihood of future events.71 However, they remain controversial, with ongoing debate about whether certain contracts (especially those related to political outcomes or other non-financial events) constitute legitimate risk management tools or fall under the category of prohibited gaming under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).71 The CFTC has taken action against platforms like Polymarket for offering unregistered event-based binary options 67 and continues to scrutinize the types of event contracts permissible for listing.81 The growth of platforms like Kalshi, particularly around major events like elections, indicates significant trader interest in this format.87

### Other Speculative Avenues (Crypto Derivatives, etc.)

The broader financial landscape also offers other avenues for high-risk speculation that may attract capital previously directed towards binary options. The volatile cryptocurrency market, in particular, has seen the rapid development of derivative products like futures and options based on assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.40 These allow traders to gain leveraged exposure to crypto price movements. While regulatory frameworks are still evolving globally, major exchanges are listing crypto derivatives, bringing them increasingly within the purview of financial regulators.50 Additionally, advancements in financial technology, including the potential use of smart contracts and distributed ledger technology (DLT) for derivatives trading, may create new forms of speculative instruments in the future.92

The persistence of retail demand for simple, high-leverage, short-term speculation is evident in the shift towards these alternatives. As regulators clamped down on binary options, the market adapted, offering different, albeit often still complex and risky, products like CFDs, event contracts, and crypto derivatives. This dynamic underscores a continuous cycle where regulatory scrutiny follows risk concentration. As speculative activity migrates, regulators are compelled to assess and potentially intervene in these newer markets, as seen with the restrictions on CFDs and the ongoing examination of event contracts and crypto assets.5 This suggests that any product offering high-leverage speculation to retail investors without robust safeguards and transparency is likely to face regulatory headwinds.

The following table provides a comparative overview of these speculative products:

**Table 2: Comparison of Speculative Products**

| :———————- | :—————————————– | :——————————————- | :——————————————————————- | :——————————————————————- | :——————————————- |

| Ownership Potential | No | No | No | No | No |

Source: Synthesized from ¹–⁵–⁶–¹⁵

10. Conclusion: The Diminishing Future of Retail Binary Options

The trajectory of binary options over the past decade and a half provides a stark case study in the collision between financial innovation, retail investor behavior, and regulatory intervention. Initially emerging as seemingly simple, accessible instruments, their proliferation through often unregulated online channels led to significant investor harm and widespread fraudulent activity.

The regulatory response in major financial markets outside the United States—specifically the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada—has been decisive and largely uniform: prohibition or severe restriction for retail investors. This consensus was built on compelling evidence of high loss rates, the products’ inherent complexity masked as simplicity, structural disadvantages like negative expected returns, unavoidable conflicts of interest in the OTC model, and an undeniable association with scams and gambling-like behavior. The use of proactive product intervention powers underscores the depth of regulatory concern, deeming the product fundamentally unsuitable for the retail market.

Consequently, the long-term viability and availability of traditional OTC binary options as a mainstream financial product for retail investors within these regulated jurisdictions appear extremely limited. The “inherently flawed” designation by regulators, coupled with profound reputational damage, makes a significant resurgence highly improbable. While a high-risk, unregulated offshore market persists, and niche applications exist within the controlled environment of US-regulated exchanges (like Nadex and CME’s event contracts) and potentially for professional clients in some regions, the era of widespread retail access in most developed markets is effectively over. The underlying demand for short-term, event-driven speculation may endure, likely finding outlets in regulated alternatives such as event contracts or other leveraged products like CFDs (where permitted and restricted), but these too will operate under the continued watchful eye of regulators focused on investor protection. The binary option, in its widely marketed retail form, seems destined to remain largely a historical footnote in the evolution of speculative financial products.

Download PDF

Works cited

The Most Important Technical Indicators for Binary Options – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/022615/most-important-technical-indicators-binary-options.asp
Binary Option: Definition, How They Trade, and Example – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/binary-option.asp
Trading Forex With Binary Options – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/022415/trading-forex-binary-options.asp
Binary Options Strategies You Should Know – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/052014/binary-options-strategies.asp
ESMA agrees on product intervention measures in relation to CFDs …, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://boletininternacionalcnmv.es/en/esma-en/investor-protection-en/esma-agrees-on-product-intervention-measures-in-relation-to-cfds-and-binary-options-offered-to-retail-investors/
22-243MR ASIC’s binary options ban extended until 2031 | ASIC, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2022-releases/22-243mr-asic-s-binary-options-ban-extended-until-2031/
Understanding Binary Options: A Simple Guide to Trading – Liquidity Provider, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://liquidity-provider.com/articles/what-are-binary-options-a-simple-guide-to-trading/
Ultimate Guide to Binary Options | Complete Controller, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://completecontroller.com/binary-options-all-there-is-to-know-before-you-invest/
EUROPEAN SECURITIES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY DECISION (EU) 2018/ 795 – of 22 May 2018 – to temporarily prohibit th – EUR-Lex.europa.eu., accessed on April 19, 2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018X0601(01)
CSA Notice and Request for Comment – Proposed National Instrument 91-102 Prohibition of Binary Options and Related Proposed Companion Policy – Ontario Securities Commission, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.osc.ca/en/securities-law/instruments-rules-policies/9/91-102/csa-notice-and-request-comment-proposed-national-instrument-91-102-prohibition-binary-options-and
Binary options trading | Dukascopy Bank, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.dukascopy.com/land/trading/bank/binaries/
Malta Binary Options, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://legal-malta.com/articles/malta-binary-options
PS19/11: Product intervention measures for retail binary options – Financial Conduct Authority, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/impact-assessments/product-intervention-retail-binary-options.pdf
General Administrative Act pursuant to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 (MIFIR) regarding binary options – BaFin, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Aufsichtsrecht/Verfuegung/vf_190701_allgvfg_Binaere_Optionen_en.html
Measures for binary options and financial contracts for differences – CNMV, accessed on April 19, 2025, http://www.cnmv.es/DocPortal/Aldia/medidascfdyopciones_ingles.pdf
CFTC/SEC Investor Alert: Binary Options and Fraud, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/fraudadv_binaryoptions.html
VinegarHill-FinanceLabs – Binary Options – Google Sites, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://sites.google.com/view/vinegarhill-financelabs/exotic-options/binary-options
Binary Options Fraud | Investor.gov, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/binary-options-fraud
The use of Contracts for difference (‘CFD’) Spread Bets and Binary Options (‘forbin’) to Trade Foreign Exchange (‘forex’) Commodities and Stocks and Shares in Volatile Financial Markets – Herald Scholarly Open Access, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/the-use-of-contracts-for-difference-cfd-spread-bets-and-binary-options-forbin-to-trade-foreign-exchange-forex-commodities-and-stocks-and-shares-in-volatile-financial-markets
Central Bank of Ireland Contracts for Difference Intervention Measure pursuant to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/regulation/industry-market-sectors/investment-firms/mifid-firms/regulatory-requirements-and-guidance/central-bank-cfd-intervention-measure.pdf?sfvrsn=8
Currency Binary: What It is, How it Works, Examples – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-binary.asp
Risks vs Return with Binary Option Trading – Theseus, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/10024/120432/2/Kiiskinen_Eemi.pdf
Understanding Binary Options in the Context of Trading Law in the Digital Era – Journal (BIRCU-Publisher), accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.bircu-journal.com/index.php/birci/article/download/4692/pdf
Understanding the Difference between Binary Options and Forex Trading – Blackwell Global, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.blackwellglobal.com/understanding-difference-binary-options-forex-trading/
Consumer warning about the risks of investing in binary options | FCA, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/consumer-warning-about-risks-investing-binary-options
Regulation Impact Statement: Product intervention: OTC binary options – ASIC, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://download.asic.gov.au/media/svsl5ljg/ris-product-intervention-otc-binary-options-published-1-april-2021.pdf
Beware of Off-Exchange Binary Options Trades | CFTC, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/beware_of_off_exchange_binary_options.htm
Beware of Online Binary Options Schemes – Missouri Secretary of State, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.sos.mo.gov/bewareofonlinebinaryoptionsschemes
The History of Binary Options Trading – Infographic – LeapRate, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.leaprate.com/news/the-history-of-binary-options-trading-infographic/
Binary options – MarketsWiki, A Commonwealth of Market Knowledge, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.marketswiki.com/wiki/Binary_options
Binary option – Wikipedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_option
Canadian securities regulators announce ban on binary options | ASC, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.asc.ca/news-and-publications/news-releases/2018/10/canadian-securities-regulators-announce-ban-on-binary-options
Central Bank of Ireland bans sale of binary options and restricts sale of contracts for difference, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.centralbank.ie/news/article/central-bank-bans-sale-binary-options-restricts-sale-contracts-for-difference
A Guide to Trading Binary Options in the US – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/061114/guide-trading-binary-options-us.asp
UK FCA Charges Four Individuals with £1.2M Binary Options Fraud – Finance Magnates, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/uk-fca-charges-four-persons-in-12m-binary-options-fraud/
Are binary options legal in the US? – Nadex, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.nadex.com/blog/are-binary-options-legal-in-the-us/
Binary Options Trading Explained: What It Is and How to Trade – Almondz Trade, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://almondztrade.com/blog/binary-options-trading-explained-what-it-is-and-how-to-trade
Binary Options in Black And White – iExpats, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.iexpats.com/binary-options/
Spread Betting Options Guide For UK Bettors [Updated 2025], accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.spread-bet.co.uk/betting/options/
ESMA agrees to prohibit binary options and restrict CFDs to protect retail investors, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-agrees-prohibit-binary-options-and-restrict-cfds-protect-retail-investors
Press release – BaFin maintains prohibition of binary options for retail clients in, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/EN/Pressemitteilung/2019/pm_190601_Verbot_binaere_Optionen_en.html
Arbitrage Strategies With Binary Options – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/040115/arbitrage-strategies-binary-options.asp
ASIC extends binary options ban – Money Management, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/policy-regulation/asic-extends-binary-options-ban
ASIC Extends Binary Options Ban until October 2031 – Finance Magnates, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/regulation/asic-extends-binary-options-ban-until-october-2031/
ASIC extends binary options ban until 2031 – NGM Lawyers, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://ngm.com.au/asic-binary-options-ban/
FR05/23 Retail Market Conduct Task Force Final Report – IOSCO, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD730.pdf
Australian regulator extends binary options ban to 2031 | Investment Executive, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/from-the-regulators/australian-regulator-extends-binary-options-ban-to-2031/
The use of Contracts for difference (‘CFD’) Spread Bets and Binary Options (‘forbin’) to Trade Foreign Exchange (‘fore – Herald Scholarly Open Access, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/article_pdf/34/the-use-of-contracts-for-difference-cfd-spread-bets-and-binary-options-forbin-to-trade-foreign-exchange-forex-commodities-and-stocks-and-shares-in-volatile-financial-markets.pdf
Binary Options Fraud – FBI, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/binary-options-fraud
US CFTC Takes Action Against Unregistered Crypto and Binary Options Platforms, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://charltonsquantum.com/us-cftc-takes-action-against-unregistered-crypto-and-binary-options-platforms/
Banc de Binary Ltd. – SEC.gov, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-22718
FCA confirms permanent ban on the sale of binary options to retail consumers, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-confirms-permanent-ban-sale-binary-options-retail-consumers
ESMA adopts final product intervention measures on CFDs and binary options, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-adopts-final-product-intervention-measures-cfds-and-binary-options
www.fca.org.uk, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps19-11.pdf
Europe wide ban on risky binary options – DLA Piper, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2018/10/finance-and-markets-global-insight-issue-15/europe-wide-ban-on-risky-binary-options
Europe wide ban on risky binary options – DLA Piper, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.dlapiper.com/es-pr/insights/publications/2018/10/finance-and-markets-global-insight-issue-15/europe-wide-ban-on-risky-binary-options
Notice of ESMA’s Product Intervention Renewal Decision in relation to binary options, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/notice-esma%E2%80%99s-product-intervention-renewal-decision-in-relation-binary-options
Notice of ESMA’s Product Intervention Renewal Decision in relation to binary options, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/markets-update/esma-guidelines-and-recommendations/markets-update-issue-14-2018/european-securities-and-markets-authority-(esma)/notice-of-esma-s-product-intervention-renewal-decision-in-relation-to-binary-options
Notice of ESMA’s Product Intervention Renewal Decision in relation to binary options, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/notice-esma%E2%80%99s-product-intervention-renewal-decision-in-relation-binary-option-1
ESMA renews binary options prohibition for a further three months from 2 April 2019, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-renews-binary-options-prohibition-further-three-months-2-april-2019
UK Financial Conduct Authority Implements Permanent Ban of Sale of Binary Options to Retail Consumers – A&O Shearman | FinReg, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://finreg.aoshearman.com/UK-Financial-Conduct-Authority-Implements-Permane
PS19/11: Product intervention measures for retail binary options | FCA, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps19-11-product-intervention-measures-retail-binary-options
FCA statement on onshoring ESMA temporary intervention measures on retail CFD and binary option products | Global Regulation Tomorrow, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/eu/fca-statement-on-onshoring-esma-temporary-intervention-measures-on-retail-cfd-and-binary-option-products/
CME’s Event Contracts: Are Binary Options Back? – Finance Magnates, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/analysis/cmes-event-contracts-are-binary-options-back/
ASIC’s binary options ban extended until 2031 – Consumers’ Federation of Australia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://consumersfederation.org.au/asics-binary-options-ban-extended-until-2031/
CSA Multilateral Notice of Multilateral Instrument 91-102 Prohibition of Binary Options and Related Companion Policy – Ontario Securities Commission, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.osc.ca/en/securities-law/instruments-rules-policies/9/91-102/csa-multilateral-notice-multilateral-instrument-91-102-prohibition-binary-options-and-related
OSC seeks settlement with prediction market | Investment Executive, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/from-the-regulators/osc-seeks-settlement-with-prediction-market/
COMPANION POLICY 91-102CP PROHIBITION OF BINARY OPTIONS – Ontario Securities Commission, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.osc.ca/sites/default/files/2020-10/csa_20171212_91-102cp_pro-binary-options.pdf
Regulatory Notice 22-08 | FINRA.org, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/22-08
Difference Between CFDs and Spread Betting | LiteFinance, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.litefinance.org/blog/for-beginners/cfd-trading/cfds-vs-spread-betting/
Event Contracts: What They Are and How They Are Used – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/events-contracts-8601422
What Are Binary Options: Definition, How Do They Work, and Example | LiteFinance, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.litefinance.org/blog/for-beginners/what-are-binary-options/
Binary Options Brokerage License – Fast Offshore, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://fastoffshore.com/what-we-do/packaged-services/binary-options-brokerage-license/
Obtaining a Forex broker license in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – Lawrange Law Firm, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://lawrange.net/en/services/saint-vincent-and-the-grenadines-forex-broker-license/
Top Forex Broker License Jurisdictions | Alliance Advisers, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://allianceadvisers.com/brokerage-jurisdiction
ASIC Proposed OTC CFD product intervention, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://download.asic.gov.au/media/5643260/cp322-submission-australian-cfd-and-fx-association-part2.pdf
Deriv: Online broker for trading anytime, anywhere, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://deriv.com/
IQ Option – Trading Broker – App Store, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/iq-option-trading-broker/id871125783
Binary Options Trading Litigation Team – Giambrone, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.giambronelaw.com/site/servicesforindividuals/binary-trading-litigation/english/
Best Netherlands Trading Platforms Regulated by AFM – TradingPedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.tradingpedia.com/netherlands/
CFTC Issues Proposed Rules on Event Contracts – Morrison Foerster, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/240520-cftc-issues-proposed-rules-on-event-contracts
CFD vs. Spread Betting: What’s the Difference? – Investopedia, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110714/getting-market-leverage-cfd-versus-spread-betting.asp
CFD trading vs Spread Betting: What are the Differences? | Dukascopy Bank SA, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.dukascopy.com/swiss/english/marketwatch/articles/cfd-vs-spread-betting/
Difference Between Binary Bets And Other Trading Options – Independent Investor, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.independentinvestor.com/spread-betting/binary-betting/binary-betting-vs/
Difference Between CFDs vs Binary Bets – Independent Investor, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.independentinvestor.com/cfd/cfds-vs-binaries/
ASIC’s CFD Product Intervention is Here – What You Should Know | Finance Magnates, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.financemagnates.com/forex/regulation/asics-cfd-product-intervention-is-here-what-you-should-know/
Kalshi revenue, valuation & growth rate | Sacra, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://sacra.com/c/kalshi/
Updated: CFTC Grants No-Action Relief for Certain Binary Option Transactions – Westlaw, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I1a77f71fadbb11ebbea4f0dc9fb69570/Updated-CFTC-Grants-No-Action-Relief-for-Certain-Binary-Option-Transactions?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
Event Contracts – Federal Register, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/10/2024-12125/event-contracts
CFTC Orders Event-Based Binary Options Markets Operator to Pay $1.4 Million Penalty, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8478-22
Event Contracts Are a Step Too Far for Derivatives Regulation – Chicago Unbound, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=ucblr
Patti.pdf, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.bu.edu/rbfl/files/2021/02/Patti.pdf
Keynote Address of Chairman Rostin Behnam at the Brookings Institution Webcast on The Future of Crypto Regulation | CFTC, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opabehnam24
ISDA Legal Guidelines for Smart Derivatives Contracts: Foreign Exchange Derivatives, accessed on April 19, 2025, https://www.isda.org/a/bPYTE/ISDA-Legal-Guidelines-for-Smart-Derivatives-Contracts-FX.pdf