Law of Code

How do prediction markets actually work, and why are state gaming regulators and the CFTC battling over who has jurisdiction to regulate?Samir Patel is an attorney at Holland & Knight, where he focuses on gambling law, prediction markets, and the intersection of crypto, derivatives, and state gaming regulation.Timestamps:➡️ 1:02 — What prediction markets are and how binary contracts work➡️ 2:51 — Prediction markets vs. sports gambling: what’s legally different?➡️ 4:02 — Are prediction markets actually “on-chain”?➡️ 7:37 — The CFTC vs. state gaming regulators: who has jurisdiction?➡️ 9:55 — Swaps, self-certification, and the Commodities Exchange Act➡️ 12:06 — How courts are splitting on federal preemption➡️ 14:39 — Why the CFTC’s silence matters more than the lawsuits themselves➡️ 18:58 — DCMs vs. FCMs: mapping the regulatory plumbing➡️ 22:00 — Prediction markets as information tools, not just bets➡️ 23:30 — What this litigation could mean for crypto and DeFi governanceSponsor: This episode is brought to you by the Decentralization Research Center (DRC), a nonprofit think tank advocating for decentralization in emerging technologies. Learn more at thedrcenter.org.Resources:📓 Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)📓 CFTC Rule 40.11📄 CFTC Staff Advisory Withdrawal of Prior Guidance on Events ContractsDisclaimer: This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Views expressed by the guest are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Chris Giancarlo, former CFTC Chair and crypto policy lawyer, discusses crypto regulation from a CFTC perspective. He explains why CFTC oversight fits spot crypto, how the CFTC and SEC should coordinate, and the implications of tokenization and DTCC’s milestone. He also covers prediction markets, stablecoin privacy, and whether TradFi will adopt crypto’s architecture.

Sarah Helena Brennan, General Counsel at Delphi Ventures and co-author of a custody modernization whitepaper. Jay Stolkin, Deputy General Counsel at Multicoin Capital and co-author of the same paper. They discuss why current custody rules strain digital-asset realities. Conversations cover on-chain verification, flexible principles-based safeguards, optionality between third-party custody and self-custody, and practical implementation notes.

Drew Hinkes, a partner at Winston & Strawn and long‑time crypto lawyer, maps 2026 legal terrain for DeFi, tokenization, and market structure. He discusses tokenized RWAs and institutional momentum. He flags AML/KYC pressure on permissionless finance. He examines interfaces as regulatory targets and why gray areas will persist around tokens, equity, and TradFi convergence.

Join Jonathan Schmalfeld, Policy Director at The Digital Chamber and crypto regulation expert, as he dives into the latest U.S. crypto developments. He discusses the SEC's tokenization moves and the CFTC's acceptance of crypto collateral. The conversation explores intriguing topics like ongoing crypto tax proposals, DeFi governance conflicts, and the implications of quantum computing on Bitcoin's future. Schmalfeld emphasizes the strategic importance of viewing crypto as essential financial infrastructure, not just a niche market.

In this episode, Jacob Robinson speaks with Odun Olowookere about Canada’s proposed Stablecoin Act, the constitutional and regulatory challenges it raises, and why critics argue it may reduce clarity rather than enhance it. Odun Olowookere is a legal scholar at York University and the co-author of a submission to Canada’s House of Commons critiquing the draft Stablecoin Act, alongside Darrell Duffie of Stanford University and Andreas Veneris of the University of Toronto.Timestamps:➡️ 0:05 — Why Canada’s draft Stablecoin Act has drawn concern➡️ 2:13 — The Act’s stated goal: monetary sovereignty and dollarization risk➡️ 3:16 — Why stablecoins are not explicitly defined as payment instruments➡️ 5:20 — How Canada’s constitutional structure complicates stablecoin regulation➡️ 8:41 — Canada’s blanket prohibition on interest and how it differs from GENIUS➡️ 9:46 — Expanded “payment function” language and why it alarms critics➡️ 10:33 — How wallets, validators, and even users could be swept into regulation➡️ 16:14 — Data security obligations and the Bank of Canada’s technical capacity➡️ 18:33 — Prudential regulation concerns and undefined reserve requirements➡️ 21:48 — Is Canada regulating stablecoins too early?Sponsor: This episode is brought to you by the Decentralization Research Center (DRC), a nonprofit think tank advocating for decentralization in emerging technologies. Learn more at thedrcenter.org.Resources: 📓 The Canadian Stablecoin Act Draft Text📄 Odun, Andreas Veneris, and Darrell Duffie’s Written submission to the House of Commons in reply to The Stablecoin ActDisclaimer: This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Views expressed by the guest are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney-client relationship.

DeFi has always promised trust without intermediaries, but as the ecosystem matures, that promise is being stress-tested by hacks, institutional risk limits, and regulatory pressure.To unpack whether DeFi can scale without sacrificing neutrality or permissionlessness, Katherine Kirkpatrick Bos, General Counsel of StarkWare, and Jessi Brooks, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer at Ribbit Capital, joined the podcast to discuss their paper “Trust Without Intermediaries: A Programmable Risk Management Framework for the Future.”The paper sparked controversy across the DeFi community, with critics arguing it could open the door to protocol-level compliance or re-intermediation. In this episode, Katherine and Jessi explain that the paper proposes something different.Timestamps: ➡️ 01:31 — Why write this paper?➡️ 07:55 — Institutional DeFi and why one-size-fits-all doesn’t work➡️ 09:43 — Compliance as a commercial choice, not a mandate➡️ 11:38 — Risk scoring in DeFi➡️ 15:37 — Technical de-risking➡️ 18:23 — Optional evolution➡️ 20:59 — Not protocol-level compliance➡️ 25:49 — Opt-in DeFi➡️ 30:44 — Lessons from the backlash and public debate& much more. Sponsor: : ⁠⁠ This episode is brought to you by ⁠⁠⁠Day One Law⁠, a boutique law firm helping crypto startups navigate complex legal challenges. Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠Day One’s free monthly newsletter⁠⁠⁠ for legal and regulatory updates.Resources: 📄 Trust Without Intermediaries: A Programmable Risk Management Framework for the FutureDisclaimer: This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Views expressed by the guest are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Jonathan Schmalfeld, Policy Director at the Digital Chamber, dives into the latest shifts in U.S. crypto law and policy. He unpacks the bipartisan Senate Agriculture Committee's draft, highlighting the missing sections on DeFi and AML. Schmalfeld also discusses the IRS's new guidance on staking for ETFs, and Uniswap's recent fee switch vote. The conversation touches on the implications of a mistrial in the MEV exploit case and the Dept. of Justice's controversial filing against Tornado Cash, while unveiling initiatives like the Digital State Network to support crypto advocacy.

Greg Xethalis, General Counsel at Multicoin Capital and board member of the Blockchain Association, dives deep into the world of crypto legislation. He shares insights on the origins and impact of ETFs, particularly the first Bitcoin ETF, revealing the SEC dynamics involved. Greg highlights the importance of the CLARITY Act and RFIA for creating effective crypto regulations and discusses the challenges of disclosure in decentralized systems. He argues for principles-based regulations to foster innovation while addressing who should bear responsibility for token disclosures.

J.W. Verrett, an Associate Professor of Law at George Mason University and a critic of banking influence on crypto regulation, dives into the implications of the GENIUS Act. He discusses his rebuttal to banks' attempts to regulate stablecoins and clarifies why definitions of 'interest' and 'yield' matter. Verrett expresses concerns about the dangers of broad rules affecting DeFi and challenges banks' authority over newly created assets. Plus, he sheds light on the significance of privacy tech like Zcash and what the future might hold for stablecoin legislation.