Tiger Research says Asia’s prediction market gap is a regulatory design problem, not a cultural one
Tiger Research argues that Asia’s prediction market problem is not weak public acceptance, but the absence of legal structures that can classify and supervise the sector. In the report, the firm contrasts Asia with the United States, the United Kingdom, and parts of Europe, where prediction markets have at least found routes into existing systems through derivatives law, betting intermediary licenses, or dedicated legislative treatment. By comparison, many Asian jurisdictions still lack both a general licensing regime that private operators can use and an open-ended financial product definition that can cover non-financial event contracts. The report says that gap has not stopped activity. Instead, liquidity has moved to offshore platforms, leaving governments without tax revenue and users without formal consumer protection or market integrity oversight. Tiger Research points to more than $52 million, or about KRW 72.8 billion, in liquidity tied to South Korea’s June 2026 local elections as evidence that demand already exists even without a domestic framework. It outlines three policy routes for Asia: adapt gambling regulation, absorb prediction markets through derivatives law, or create a standalone third category similar to Gibraltar’s new approach. The report concludes that before any of those options can advance, Asian jurisdictions first need a public policy process that openly debates what prediction markets are and how they should be classified.








