IBJR supports CMN Resolution on derivatives, which prohibits regulatory arbitrage and protects the legalized betting market.

The Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR) views the Resolution of the National Monetary Council (CMN) No. 5.298, published on April 24, 2026, as positive, as it establishes clear limits for the organization and operation of the derivatives market in the country. By preventing sporting events, online games, and political or cultural themes from serving as collateral for financial products, the CMN consolidates legal certainty and prevents the financial system from being used to circumvent the regulation of the betting sector.

This decision, announced by the Central Bank of Brazil, makes it impossible for companies attempting to enter the Brazilian market through the so-called "predictive market," masking the true nature of their activity, to circumvent the regulations. The IBJR reiterates that when consumers assume risk conditioned on an uncertain outcome, they are making a bet, regardless of the label, technology, or contractual form used. Accepting otherwise would create an unacceptable competitive asymmetry for operators who have adapted to the rigorous regulatory process.

Allowing equivalent products to operate outside the betting regime would mean opening space for regulatory arbitrage, with well-known consequences: unfair competition, loss of tax revenue, threats to sporting integrity and, above all, weakening consumer protection. Without the umbrella of Law 14.790/23, these financial products would escape essential Responsible Gaming mechanisms, such as the monitoring of compulsive behaviors and safeguards against over-indebtedness.

Brazil recently structured its legislation for fixed-odds betting. Replicating the same economic exposure through alternative means, without fulfilling the same legal and fiscal obligations, would not represent innovation, but rather a regulatory circumvention. The IBJR (Brazilian Institute of Arbitration and Sports) understands that innovation coexists with rules and equality, while arbitrage attempts to avoid them.