tags. We must preserve HTML structure, maintain meaning and tone, keep facts/numbers accurate, use appropriate Chinese terminology for crypto/tech terms, and keep proper nouns in original form (e.g., CFTC, Kalshi, Sixth Circuit, etc.). Also respond in JSON format with keys: title, content, meta.description.
Let's translate step by step.
Original title: "CFTC Asks Appeals Court to Uphold Its Authority Over Prediction Markets in Kalshi Battle"
Translation: "CFTC请求上诉法院维持其对预测市场的管辖权，与Kalshi之争持续"
But need to be natural. Maybe: "CFTC要求上诉法院维持其对预测市场的监管权，与Kalshi的法律战持续" But keep concise. Let's think: "CFTC请求上诉法院维持其对预测市场的管辖权，在与Kalshi的诉讼中" But better: "CFTC请求上诉法院确认其对预测市场的管辖权，与Kalshi对簿公堂" However, the original says "Asks Appeals Court to Uphold Its Authority Over Prediction Markets in Kalshi Battle". So: "CFTC请求上诉法院维持其在Kalshi案中对预测市场的管辖权"
I'll go with: "CFTC请求上诉法院维持其对预测市场的管辖权，与Kalshi的法律纠纷持续"
But finalize after content.
Content translation:
First paragraph: "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has urged the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm that federal law gives the agency jurisdiction over prediction markets, a move that could decide the fate of Kalshi’s effort to offer event-based contracts. The filing comes in an ongoing legal fight between the regulator and the prediction-market platform, which wants to list bets on political outcomes. At stake is whether the CFTC can block Kalshi from selling contracts that critics say amount to gambling on elections."
Translation: "美国商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）已敦促第六巡回上诉法院确认联邦法律赋予该机构对预测市场的管辖权，此举可能决定Kalshi提供事件合约的命运。该文件是在监管机构与这家预测市场平台之间持续的法律斗争中提交的，该平台希望列出政治结果押注。关键问题在于CFTC能否阻止Kalshi出售批评者所称等同于选举赌博的合约。"
Keep proper nouns: Commodity Futures Trading Commission -> 美国商品期货交易委员会 (CFTC), Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals -> 第六巡回上诉法院, Kalshi unchanged. Use "事件合约" for event-based contracts. "押注" for bets.
Second paragraph:
The dispute’s origins
->
争议的起源
Content: "Kalshi, a New York-based startup, allows users to trade contracts on binary events—yes or no questions like “Will the Fed raise rates by June?” The CFTC has long argued that some of these contracts, especially those tied to political contests, fall under its regulatory authority under the Commodity Exchange Act. In 2023, the agency denied Kalshi’s request to list contracts on U.S. congressional control, saying they resembled illegal gaming. Kalshi sued, claiming the CFTC overstepped its mandate. The case landed in the Sixth Circuit after a district court sided with the commission in part."
Translation: "Kalshi是一家总部位于纽约的初创公司，允许用户交易二元事件合约——即“是或否”问题，例如“美联储会在6月前加息吗？”CFTC长期以来一直认为，其中一些合约，尤其是与政治竞赛相关的合约，根据《商品交易法》属于其监管权限。2023年，该机构拒绝了Kalshi列出美国国会控制权合约的请求，称其类似非法博彩。Kalshi提起诉讼，声称CFTC越权。在地方法院部分支持CFTC后，该案进入第六巡回法院。"
Note: "binary events" -> 二元事件, "yes or no questions" -> 是或否问题, "Commodity Exchange Act" -> 《商品交易法》, "illegal gaming" -> 非法博彩, "overstepped its mandate" -> 越权, "district court" -> 地方法院, "sided with the commission in part" -> 部分支持CFTC.
Third paragraph:
What the CFTC told the appeals court
->
CFTC对上诉法院的陈述
Content: "In its brief filed earlier this month, the CFTC’s legal team argued that Congress gave the agency broad power to police “any transaction that is not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Exchange Act.” That language, they say, covers prediction markets because the contracts are tied to future events and involve risk transfer. The commission pointed to past enforcement actions against similar platforms, including one that let users bet on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. “The Commission’s authority over these contracts is clear,” the filing states. “Kalshi’s attempt to avoid oversight would undermine decades of market regulation.” The agency also warned that allowing unregulated prediction markets could open the door to manipulation and insider trading."
Translation: "在本月早些时候提交的简报中，CFTC的法律团队辩称，国会赋予该机构广泛的权力来监管‘任何不受《商品交易法》管辖的交易’。他们表示，这一表述涵盖了预测市场，因为这些合约与未来事件挂钩并涉及风险转移。该委员会引用了过去对类似平台的执法行动，包括一个允许用户押注2020年总统选举结果的平台。‘委员会对这些合约的管辖权是明确的，’简报中写道，‘Kalshi试图逃避监管将破坏数十年的市场监管。’该机构还警告称，允许不受监管的预测市场可能为操纵和内幕交易打开大门。"
Note: "brief" -> 简报, "police" -> 监管, "risk transfer" -> 风险转移, "enforcement actions" -> 执法行动, "manipulation and insider trading" -> 操纵和内幕交易.
Fourth paragraph:
Kalshi’s counterargument
->
Kalshi的反驳
Content: "Kalshi has consistently maintained that its contracts are not futures or options as defined by the Commodity Exchange Act. The company describes them as simple yes-or-no wagers that function more like insurance or a binary option, not the kind of agricultural or energy derivatives the CFTC normally oversees. In earlier court filings, Kalshi argued that the CFTC’s interpretation would give it a “blank check” to regulate any contract involving a prediction, including sports betting or weather forecasts. The company also noted that Congress explicitly legalized sports betting in 2018 and left prediction markets to state regulators, not the CFTC."
Translation: "Kalshi一直坚称其合约并非《商品交易法》定义的期货或期权。该公司将其描述为简单的‘是或否’押注，功能更像保险或二元期权，而非CFTC通常监管的农业或能源衍生品。在早期的法庭文件中，Kalshi辩称，CFTC的解释将赋予其一张‘空白支票’来监管任何涉及预测的合约，包括体育博彩或天气预报。该公司还指出，国会于2018年明确将体育博彩合法化，并将预测市场留给州监管机构，而非CFTC。"
Note: "futures or options" -> 期货或期权, "binary option" -> 二元期权, "blank check" -> 空白支票, "sports betting" -> 体育博彩, "weather forecasts" -> 天气预报, "state regulators" -> 州监管机构.
Fifth paragraph:
Why this case matters beyond Kalshi
->
此案为何超越Kalshi本身
Content: "Prediction markets have attracted growing interest from traders and tech investors who see them as a way to hedge against political and economic uncertainty. Platforms like Polymarket and PredictIt have gained traction, but they often operate in a legal gray area. A ruling from the Sixth Circuit could set a precedent for how—or whether—these markets can exist in the U.S. The CFTC under Chairman Rostin Behnam has taken a tough line, arguing that unregulated event contracts risk turning derivatives markets into casinos. Supporters of prediction markets counter that they provide valuable data and a way to aggregate public opinion more accurately than polls."
Translation: "预测市场已吸引交易员和科技投资者的日益关注，他们将其视为对冲政治和经济不确定性的一种方式。Polymarket和PredictIt等平台已获得关注，但它们往往在法律灰色地带运营。第六巡回法院的裁决可能为这些市场如何——或是否——在美国存在开创先例。在主席Rostin Behnam领导下的CFTC采取了强硬立场，认为不受监管的事件合约有将衍生品市场变成赌场的风险。预测市场的支持者反驳称，它们提供了有价值的数据，并且比民调更准确地聚合公众意见。"
Note: "hedge" -> 对冲, "legal gray area" -> 法律灰色地带, "precedent" -> 先例, "Chairman Rostin Behnam" -> 主席Rostin Behnam (keep original), "casinos" -> 赌场, "aggregate public opinion" -> 聚合公众意见.
Sixth paragraph:
