Romania’s top gambling authority, the National Office for Gambling (ONJN), has officially blacklisted Polymarket, a prominent blockchain-based prediction platform, citing unauthorized gambling activity within the country. The regulator emphasized that Polymarket’s operations fall under the legal definition of gambling, which in Romania requires a valid license—regardless of whether the bets are made using traditional currency or cryptocurrency.
In a formal statement, ONJN President Vlad-Cristian Soare clarified that the decision was rooted not in technological skepticism, but in the enforcement of national law. “Whether you’re wagering in Romanian lei or in digital assets, if you’re staking money on the outcome of a future event against another party, that constitutes gambling—which must be licensed,” he explained. Soare also stressed that the agency will not permit blockchain technology to be exploited as a loophole for illegal wagering activities.
Polymarket, which operates as a decentralized prediction market, allows users to place bets on the outcomes of various real-world events, ranging from political elections to economic forecasts. The platform uses smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain to facilitate and settle these bets, and traditionally markets itself as a hub for information discovery rather than a gambling venue. However, Romanian authorities view its core mechanics as fundamentally akin to gambling operations.
ONJN’s classification of Polymarket as an illegal gambling provider in Romania reflects a growing trend among regulators worldwide to more closely scrutinize blockchain-based platforms that blur the line between finance, entertainment, and wagering. By adding Polymarket to the official blacklist of unauthorized sites, ONJN effectively blocks Romanian internet users from accessing the platform through local internet service providers.
This isn’t the first time Polymarket has found itself in regulatory crosshairs. In 2022, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined the company $1.4 million and ordered it to wind down certain markets. At the time, the CFTC argued that Polymarket was offering binary options contracts without proper registration as a Designated Contract Market or Swap Execution Facility.
The Romanian regulator’s move reignites the broader debate around the legal classification of decentralized prediction markets. While such platforms often present themselves as tools for crowd-sourced forecasting or public sentiment analysis, regulators frequently interpret them as thinly veiled forms of gambling—especially when monetary stakes and payouts are involved.
The legal framework in Romania requires any form of gambling—be it land-based casinos, online sportsbooks, or digital platforms like Polymarket—to secure specific licenses and comply with stringent operational standards. These requirements are designed to ensure consumer protection, prevent money laundering, and maintain the integrity of the gambling industry.
For Romanian users who had funds or open positions on Polymarket, the blacklisting raises practical concerns. While blockchain-based systems are technically accessible from anywhere, the ONJN’s decision may limit access to the platform through conventional channels, potentially pushing users toward VPNs or other circumvention tools. This, in turn, could lead to additional legal risks for individuals who continue to use the site despite its banned status.
Furthermore, the situation underlines a broader regulatory challenge faced by decentralized platforms: the mismatch between their global, borderless nature and the jurisdiction-specific legal environments in which their users operate. As decentralized finance (DeFi) and Web3 applications continue to grow, conflicts between innovation and regulation are expected to intensify.
Experts in digital law argue that the Polymarket case could set a precedent for how other European governments approach similar platforms. While some countries have embraced blockchain innovations with open arms, others, like Romania, are adopting a more cautious, enforcement-driven stance—especially when it comes to platforms involving financial risk or speculative activity.
Another layer to this issue is the question of how decentralized Polymarket truly is. While the platform uses smart contracts, some regulatory bodies argue that if there’s a central entity managing user funds, promoting the service, or curating the markets, then it falls under traditional regulatory scope, regardless of its technological infrastructure.
Looking ahead, platforms like Polymarket may need to either obtain local licenses in jurisdictions where they operate or restructure their offerings to avoid the legal definition of gambling. That might involve removing monetary stakes, focusing on non-financial forecasting tools, or limiting access based on geographic location.
In the meantime, Romanian authorities have made their stance clear: betting on future events, whether powered by blockchain or not, constitutes gambling—and gambling in Romania must be licensed. The ONJN’s decision serves as a stark reminder to blockchain-based platforms that technological innovation does not exempt them from regulatory compliance.