Meta tests Takes prediction app as rivals face lawsuits
Meta Platforms has begun testing a prediction-market application called Takes with employees, allowing participants to predict real-world events using virtual points rather than money, according to a November 13 report by The Wall Street Journal.
The application uses a points system called “cred,” short for credibility. Participants gain points when their predictions are correct and lose them when they are wrong. Unlike Kalshi and Polymarket, where customers trade contracts involving actual money, Takes currently operates without cash wagers.
The employee trial advances a project first reported in June, when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg directed staff to develop a standalone prediction-market application under the working name Arena.
Meta has not announced a public launch date or confirmed whether the application will eventually support real-money trading. The company declined to comment on the latest report.
The development comes as established prediction-market operators face an escalating legal battle over whether their event contracts fall exclusively under federal derivatives regulation or can also be restricted under state gambling laws.
Takes moves from development into employee testing
Meta’s reported internal testing marks a more concrete stage for the project, which had previously been described primarily as an initiative directed by Zuckerberg.
According to the Journal, employees can predict outcomes across subjects ranging from corporate developments to entertainment. Examples included whether former Apple CEO Tim Cook would become Nvidia’s next chief executive and who would win an episode of the television quiz show Jeopardy.
The system rewards accurate predictions with additional cred points while deducting points for incorrect answers. No evidence has emerged that the points can be converted into cash, withdrawn or traded on a secondary market.
The name has changed, the launch date hasn’t appeared.
Meta has also not disclosed whether Takes uses prices determined by participants, how predictions are settled, or whether employees compete through leaderboards or other social features.
Those details would determine how closely the application resembles existing prediction exchanges rather than a forecasting game built around scores and rankings.
The original Arena concept was expected to operate as a seperate application from Meta’s existing social platforms. The latest reporting does not establish whether that distribution strategy has changed.
Staff are trying it, and that’s about the extent of the rollout.
Meta routinely tests experimental applications internally before deciding whether to release them publicly. The existence of an employee trial therefore provides evidence of product development but does not establish that a consumer launch has been approved.
A points-based model differs from Kalshi and Polymarket
The absence of real-money contracts creates a substantial difference between Takes and the businesses operated by Kalshi and Polymarket.
Kalshi operates a federally regulated derivatives exchange where customers can buy and sell contracts tied to specified outcomes. Polymarket’s US business also operates within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulated market framework.
Both platforms have developed commercial businesses around event-contract trading, where monetary positions, transaction execution and settlement form part of the customer experience.
Takes, as currently described, has none of those reported cash-settlement features. Its incentives instead depend on the accumulation or loss of virtual points.
A cash product would be a different business, and a different legal problem too.
For Meta, a points-based application could provide information about whether users repeatedly participate in forecasting activities without first introducing financial transactions. The company has not released engagement figures, retention data or the number of employees participating in the test.
There is also no disclosed revenue model. A points-only application would not generate the transaction fees associated with real-money contract trading unless Meta introduced additional monetization features.
The competitive implications are therefore limited at this stage. Meta has considerable consumer distribution through Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, but the latest reporting does not establish whether Takes would be integrated into those services or promoted to their users.
Nor has Meta confirmed that it intends to compete directly for the trading volume currently handled by regulated prediction exchanges.
The company may be testing consumer interest in forecasting rather than committing to the infrastructure and regulatory obligations of a financial trading platform. Its eventual commerical direction remains undisclosed.
CFTC sues Louisiana as state restrictions expand
Meta’s internal trial coincides with a fresh escalation in the legal confrontation between US states and federally regulated prediction markets.
On November 12, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill initiated enforcement action against prediction-market businesses including Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Coinbase and Crypto.com, alleging that their event-contract offerings violate state gambling laws.
DaveFinances reported the Louisiana lawsuit against prediction-market operators following the attorney general’s initial announcement.
Later that day, a Louisiana state court granted an emergency restraining order targeting event-contract activity involving more than 30 companies, according to federal regulators.
Louisiana moved fast, very fast, from a lawsuit to a court order.
On November 13, the CFTC responded by filing its own lawsuit seeking to prevent Louisiana from enforcing restrictions against federally regulated derivatives businesses.
In its November 13 enforcement announcement, the regulator said Louisiana had obtained an order affecting designated contract markets, futures commission merchants and derivatives clearing organizations without providing the defendants an opportunity to be heard.
The CFTC maintains that Congress granted it exclusive jurisdiction over the relevant federally regulated derivatives markets under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Louisiana takes the opposing position that contracts involving sporting outcomes and other wagering activity can fall under state gambling restrictions even when offered by federally registered entities.
The regulator’s lawsuit seeks to stop enforcement of the state restrictions while federal courts consider the jurisdictional dispute. Filing that action does not itself overturn the Louisiana order.
The federal agency also sued Arkansas on November 13 after the state pursued civil enforcement against Kalshi, seeking to prevent event-contract trading and obtain substantial monetary penalties.
According to the CFTC, Louisiana became the twelfth state it had sued to defend its asserted jurisdiction over derivatives markets.
Speaking at the Cantor Convergence conference on November 13, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig criticized states for pursuing criminal enforcement against prediction-market executives. He argued that disagreements over whether event contracts constitute gambling or derivatives should be resolved through the courts rather than exposing company executives to potential imprisonment.
Conflicting court decisions leave expansion uncertain
The federal-state dispute has already produced different outcomes in appellate courts.
In April, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld preliminary protection for Kalshi against New Jersey’s attempt to apply gambling restrictions to its sports contracts.
In August, the Ninth Circuit rejected Kalshi’s attempt to prevent Nevada from enforcing its gaming laws against similar sports event contracts.
DaveFinances examined the conflicting interpretations following Kalshi’s Nevada appellate defeat, which left the industry facing materially different judicial approaches to federal preemption.
The litigation also extends beyond Kalshi. In September, New York brought an action against Polymarket’s US business, alleging that its event contracts constituted unlawful gambling without a state license.
That action, detailed in DaveFinances’ coverage of New York’s lawsuit against Polymarket, challenged the company’s position that its federal registration protected its offerings from state gambling enforcement.
The differing court decisions create an operational issue for companies attempting to maintain nationwide trading markets. Contract availablity may depend on the state in which a customer resides and the outcome of litigation involving particular products.
Restrictions on access can also affect the number of traders participating in a contract, potentially influencing liquidity and execution costs. The magnitude of those effects has not been established by the latest Louisiana proceedings.
Meta’s present approach does not involve the same financial transactions, but a future decision to introduce monetary contracts would require a separate assessment of applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
The company has not disclosed any application for CFTC registration connected to Takes, any partnership with an existing regulated exchange or any timetable for introducing cash settlement.
So Meta has a test app, not a market challenger yet.
For investors assessing the prediction-market sector, the two developments point to different stages of market development. Established platforms are defending the legal basis of their existing revenue-generating products, while Meta is testing whether a forecasting application can attract participation without monetary incentives.
There is no verified basis to estimate Takes’ potential revenue, user base or effect on Kalshi and Polymarket’s trading activity. Its eventual impact will depend on whether Meta releases the application publicly, what features accompany that release and whether the company retains the points-only structure.
As of November 14, Takes remains an internal employee experiment with no confirmed public launch. Meanwhile, the Louisiana restraining order and the CFTC’s November 13 lawsuit represent immediate legal developments for existing real-money prediction-market operators.
Johan Shamshad is Editor-in-Chief at Dave Finances, covering financial markets, digital assets, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, payments and regulation. Since 2023, he has also worked as an editor at Gulf News, the UAE English-language newspaper published by Al Nisr Publishing LLC. His work focuses on market-moving developments, company disclosures, regulatory changes and trading infrastructure, with an emphasis on primary-source verification and practical context for traders and investors.