Polymarket

Official Polymarket logo.

Polymarket is an online prediction-market platform where participants trade positions tied to possible outcomes of future events. The brand covers two separately operated services: blockchain-based Polymarket International and Polymarket US, a product of QCX LLC. They have different operators, trading systems, user terms and regulatory treatment.

On Polymarket International, an event can contain one or more markets, each with a defined question, commonly with Yes and No outcomes. Participants submit orders to an offchain service; matched trades settle through smart contracts on Polygon. Prices emerge from the order book and may be read as market-implied forecasts. Their meaning depends on the spread, available liquidity and market rules.

History

Origins and early development

A CFTC order said Blockratize Inc., doing business as Polymarket, had operated event-based markets since about June 2020. Contemporary reporting described a beta platform with questions on politics, business, health and science. Founder Shayne Coplan said the aim was to aggregate views through event contracts rather than representative polling.

Selected financing announcements and investments

October 2020: US$4 million round led by Polychain Capital.

May 2024: US$70 million across a US$25 million Series A and a US$45 million Series B, announced together; no valuation was disclosed in the announcement.

October 2025: Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) announced an agreement for an investment of up to US$2 billion at an approximately US$8 billion pre-investment valuation. ICE later said US$1 billion was its initial direct cash investment; the original ceiling should not be read as cash already invested.

March 2026: ICE announced a further US$600 million direct cash investment as part of Polymarket’s equity-capital fundraising and anticipated purchases of up to US$40 million of existing-holder securities. The company said final valuation terms would be disclosed after the fundraising.

US regulatory action and geographic limits

On 3 January 2022, the CFTC announced a settled order against Blockratize Inc., doing business as Polymarket, over offering event-based binary options without CFTC exchange designation or swap execution facility registration. The order imposed a US$1.4 million civil penalty, required the wind-down of noncompliant markets and included a cease-and-desist undertaking. It addressed that operator and those contracts, not the status of all later products.

In July 2025, the CFTC designated QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US, as a designated contract market. A 24 November 2025 amended order vacated its prior prohibition on futures commission merchants intermediating transactions, subject to reporting tests and revised clearing arrangements before that activity began. These actions concern the separate US venue, not Polymarket International.

On 21 July 2025, Polymarket announced that it had closed a US$112 million acquisition of the holding company for QCX LLC and QC Clearing LLC, which it referred to collectively as QCEX. The Associated Press reported that Polymarket resumed US operations through the separate Polymarket US service. The company’s current transparency page says the service has been fully launched since May 2026.

Regulators have treated Polymarket International differently across jurisdictions. In February 2026, the Netherlands Gambling Authority said it had ordered Adventure One QSS Inc., which it identified as trading as Polymarket, to stop unlicensed gambling offerings or face a conditional penalty of €420,000 per week, capped at €840,000. The authority said this was a conditional penalty, not a fine already paid. On 17 July 2026, France’s National Gaming Authority (ANJ) said its president had ordered internet service providers to block the Polymarket website on 16 July. ANJ said it had been alerted to the offering since November 2024 and that, after an initial formal notice, Polymarket geoblocked related financial transactions from France. The authority said that measure had been circumvented. ANJ characterized the site as promoting illegal gambling and the offering as potentially unauthorized under French law. These were decisions or positions of national regulators about their own jurisdictions, rather than a universal legal classification of prediction markets.

In April 2026, the CFTC announced that it had sued Wisconsin after the state brought cases involving Polymarket and other prediction-market companies. The agency argued that federal law gave the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over the relevant markets. This records the regulator’s position in litigation, not a final nationwide legality decision. An offering’s regulatory status depends on its operator, product, user location and the decisions of relevant authorities.

Election-market prominence

By 4 November 2024, Reuters reported about US$3.1 billion in cumulative volume for the presidential-winner contract, including an estimated US$1.97 billion on Trump-versus-Harris outcomes. The contract history also included candidates who had left the race. These dated figures measure turnover, not unique users, current depth, open exposure or revenue, and do not by themselves establish forecast accuracy.

During election night, prices changed as participants traded on incoming information, while final settlement depended on the contract’s written outcome definition and later resolution. Polymarket’s retrospective records the company’s account of how its election markets moved; it is not independent verification of forecast accuracy. Market prices are not official election returns, and a high quote does not settle a contract.

Partnerships and data distribution

Polymarket later entered product and data-distribution agreements. In June 2025, it and X announced a partnership to integrate market information into X, combining Polymarket data with posts on the social network and annotations from its Grok system. The agreement covered presentation and use of market data; it did not make the companies a single operator.

In January 2026, Polymarket and Dow Jones announced an exclusive agreement to distribute Polymarket prediction-market data across Dow Jones consumer platforms, including The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, MarketWatch and Investor’s Business Daily. The agreement integrated data; it was not a merger or a general endorsement of market forecasts. The checked sources establish this relationship. A news organization’s coverage of prediction-market odds alone does not establish a commercial partnership.

Sports agreements accompanied the US launch. In October 2025, the National Hockey League announced multiyear US prediction-market partnerships with Polymarket and Kalshi. In March 2026, Major League Baseball named Polymarket its Official Prediction Market Exchange. MLB separately announced an integrity memorandum with the CFTC; the two arrangements were distinct. MLB also described restrictions on markets it considered integrity risks and the use of official league data. These agreements give the companies access to league marks, information or distribution under stated terms. The agreements do not establish that every sports market has league endorsement or CFTC approval.

Market structure and technology

Questions, outcomes and prices

Polymarket organizes related questions into events, each of which can contain one or more markets with their own resolution conditions. A binary market usually offers Yes and No positions tied to its wording and settlement rules. An event may also group several markets, including mutually exclusive choices such as candidates in an election. A user’s position is the balance of outcome units held for a market; buying or selling units changes that balance before settlement.

Prices form in a central limit order book. Buyers post bids and sellers post asks; a trader seeking immediate execution trades against the opposite side and pays the displayed offer or receives the bid. The gap is the spread. Polymarket says the displayed price is usually the midpoint, but uses the last trade when the spread exceeds its stated threshold. A midpoint may not be an executable price.

Cumulative volume records trading over a period; it does not show how much can currently be executed at one price or count unique participants. Order-book depth and spread describe available offers, not historical turnover.

Order matching and blockchain settlement

On Polymarket International, a participant signs an order specifying an outcome identifier, side, price, quantity and other execution details. The order goes to the central limit order book service, whose operator checks the signature, balance, approvals and market constraints. Orders may rest on the book or match against others. The operator’s offchain matcher provides the order-book experience; matched trades are then submitted to smart contracts on Polygon for settlement. A match response and a settled blockchain transaction are separate steps, and settlement may occur asynchronously after matching.

A signature authorizes an order, not unrestricted access to every asset in the wallet. If the exchange matches the order, the relevant settlement contract can execute it only if its balance and allowance checks pass. The contract must also be deployed and configured correctly, the wallet must use the right signer and permissions, and a valid onchain transaction must be submitted. Trading therefore combines user-authorized orders, an operator-run matcher and programmable settlement.

Common instructions include GTC and GTD limit orders, which remain open until cancelled or an expiry time, and FOK and FAK orders, which seek immediate full or partial execution. The “market order” is described as an aggressive limit order; it does not guarantee a fixed execution price.

Polymarket describes its international service as non-custodial: users hold their keys, while smart contracts hold collateral backing open positions. This describes custody; the offchain matcher and market administration remain platform-operated.

Polymarket documents public clients and endpoints for read-only market discovery and order-book data.

A wallet signer is required to place or manage trades; some wallet operations also use API credentials. Public market data is not the same as unauthenticated trading.

Outcome positions and collateral

The two outcomes in a binary market form a complete set. Splitting one unit of collateral creates one Yes and one No position. Equal holdings can be merged back into the corresponding amount of collateral before resolution. Participants can also buy or sell one outcome on the order book; splitting and merging are contract operations that create or unwind complete sets.

After resolution, a position is redeemed according to its recorded payout. A standard binary result pays one collateral unit to the winning side and zero to the losing side; in a rare 50/50 split, Yes and No each pay 0.50. Polymarket says written rules specify the source, deadline and edge cases; the title alone does not. It may add on-chain context to clarify a question without changing its fundamental intent.

Polymarket documents two coexisting systems for outcome balances: Gnosis Conditional Tokens and its Protocol V2 PositionManager. Both use ERC-1155 balances, but their identifiers and integrations differ.

“CTF Exchange V2” is a separate exchange for Conditional Tokens; it is not another name for the Protocol V2 PositionManager. The current contracts page lists Polygon mainnet (chain ID 137) and the exchange deployments.

In 2026, Polymarket’s documented international collateral layer uses pUSD, or Polymarket USD: a six-decimal ERC-20 token on Polygon described as backed by USDC. Smart contracts wrap and unwrap collateral through onramps and offramps. The pUSD guide’s example identifies USDC.e as the asset being wrapped. pUSD is settlement collateral, not a governance token.

The original CTF Exchange V1 repository is archived and directs developers to V2 deployment information. CTF Exchange V2 adds wrapped-collateral support and adapters for splitting, merging and redeeming CTF positions.

Negative-risk markets

A negative-risk event groups mutually exclusive outcomes, such as several candidates competing for one office. In an ordinary set of separate binary questions, a No position in one market would not automatically be connected to the other markets. In a configured negative-risk group, a No position in one outcome can be converted into Yes positions for the other outcomes. For example, a No position on “Other” may be converted into Yes positions on each named candidate. This mechanism relates the outcomes through the fact that only one can win and is implemented through specific adapters or protocol modules.

Some events use augmented negative risk to add outcomes after trading begins. Current documentation distinguishes named and additional outcomes from an “Other” category. An unnamed correct outcome resolves to “Other,” and the category’s definition may change as placeholders are clarified. The exact wording and current outcome list therefore matter; conversion mechanics do not remove the need to read the market’s terms.

Fees and execution costs

Not every listed market necessarily has the same execution settings. The minimum price increment, minimum order size, accepted order instructions and fee parameters are market data, and the API returns constraints used to validate orders. A general description of order types does not establish that every type or price increment is available in every market. The market page and current market record provide the relevant local terms; platform-wide examples describe the supported system rather than every market configuration.

Polymarket’s fee policy changed from early descriptions that presented trading as fee-free. Current international documentation says taker fees apply to certain market categories and are collected at matching; makers are not charged by the platform under the documented schedule. The published fee formula is the number of shares multiplied by the fee rate, price and one minus price. It therefore varies with the share price and the rate assigned to a market. The documentation identifies geopolitical and world-event markets as fee-free, while listing fees for several other categories. Rates and eligible markets can change, so a dated fee schedule should not be presented as permanent policy.

Resolution

Polymarket uses UMA’s Optimistic Oracle for prediction markets and Chainlink time-weighted average prices for cryptocurrency up-or-down markets. Current documentation gives a typical US$750 pUSD bond and a two-hour challenge period for an UMA proposal. An undisputed proposal can resolve after liveness. A dispute allows another proposal; a second dispute escalates to UMA’s Data Verification Mechanism. Polymarket describes 24–48 hours for evidence and debate, followed by a roughly 48-hour vote using commit–reveal voting by UMA token holders. These are typical timings and configured parameters, not fixed guarantees.

A 2025 market on a proposed US–Ukraine minerals agreement shows how competing interpretations of wording, deadlines or sources can produce a contested settlement. Its rules set a 31 March deadline and named US and Ukrainian government information as sources. Polymarket’s archived record shows a YES proposal was disputed before YES became the final outcome. This documents a contested interpretation and settlement path; it does not by itself establish an oracle attack, fraud or a violation of the rules.

Interpretation and limitations

A prediction-market price is neither a polling result nor a guaranteed calibrated probability. It reflects the marginal terms at which participants trade and is shaped by the participating pool, available information, risk and liquidity. One peer-reviewed study found that calibration varied with time to resolution in its sample. Poll comparisons likewise depend on the venue, participants and evaluation method. These studies neither assess Polymarket’s current markets nor establish that it is generally more or less accurate than polls.

Market participants are self-selected, unlike a conventional poll sample. Trading requires willingness and ability to open a position under the service’s rules and geographic restrictions. Participants may differ from the broader population affected by an event, and some markets may have few active traders or limited depth at a given price. Prices can inform about the beliefs and trades represented in that market without representing everyone’s views or the eventual outcome.

The evidence also cautions against universal claims that prediction markets outperform or underperform polling. One historical analysis of US presidential elections found that market prices added no predictive information after accounting for final-week polls in its sample. A separate experiment on geopolitical questions found that aggregated self-reports were at least as informative as prices for that study’s participants and questions. Neither result was a direct evaluation of Polymarket’s current market mix. They illustrate that comparisons depend on who participates, what information each method uses and when forecasts are measured.

The international service’s geographic-access endpoint distinguishes blocked jurisdictions from locations where users may only close existing positions; the list is an operational snapshot and may change.

In April 2026, the US Department of Justice and CFTC announced criminal and civil actions alleging that an active-duty servicemember used classified information to trade Polymarket contracts connected to a military operation. The agencies’ releases described allegations in charges and a complaint; the sources checked for this article found no later adjudication. The case brought questions about information access and conflicts of interest into public discussion of event markets. The sources do not establish the allegations as fact or show a platform-wide practice.

See also

Vandra