The prediction market sector is definitely taking off, but Polymarket isn’t necessarily the sure-fire beneficiary.

I. First, separate the two numbers

$1.8 billion is annualized revenue, or about $150 million per month; $14.5 billion is the US site’s nominal trading volume in October. A rough calculation puts the monetization rate around 1%—but note that the figures use different scopes: revenue is global, while the $14.5 billion is only for the US site, so this is just an order-of-magnitude reference.

More importantly, there’s the term “nominal trading volume.” Each prediction market contract ultimately settles at $1, so a trade bought at $0.30 and sold at $0.70 generates nominal volume twice. That means $14.5 billion isn’t $14.5 billion in capital; the actual capital tied up is an order of magnitude smaller.

What does this mean? The industry makes money through scale, not commissions. The apparent boom in trading volume translates into less financial leverage than you might think.

II. Where growth comes from: the new-market launch boost plus seasonal traffic, not structural growth

The US site only launched in May this year. In October, nominal volume reached $14.5 billion, up more than threefold from just $4 billion in June. The drivers are clear: the FIFA World Cup in the summer, followed by the start of the NFL season in September.

In other words, this was a one-off convergence of “launching in a new market” and “seasonal traffic.” 2027 has no World Cup and no major election, making it a typical “event lull” year. Whether financial predictions like “CPI, earnings, and BTC prices” can carry the business then will be the real test.

III. The “takeoff” may not benefit Polymarket: market share has already flipped

Here’s what’s easiest to overlook: at the end of 2024, Polymarket still accounted for over 90% of monthly trading volume. Now the tables have turned.

In August 2026, Kalshi did $37.17 billion in a single month, while Polymarket’s US and international sites combined did $8.16 billion; from mid-September to mid-October, the shares were roughly 76% for Kalshi, 12% for Polymarket’s US site, and 5% for its international site.

So Polymarket’s $1.8 billion came amid a backdrop of “losing the lead in market share”—its growth came from the overall pie getting bigger, not from its share increasing. These two things have completely different implications for valuation.

IV. The real bottleneck isn’t demand, it’s regulation

Polymarket’s US site operates on QCX, the CFTC-designated contract market it bought for $112 million in July 2025. It only opened to US users in December 2025, starting with sports.

But that’s also where the trouble lies: the New York attorney general has already sued it for illegally operating a gambling business, and Nevada’s gaming regulator has taken direct enforcement action. The CFTC’s draft regulatory rules in June this year left a relatively permissive opening for election-related political markets while drawing a red line around sports-event betting.

In other words, the industry is now facing a legal battle between “federal derivatives regulation” and “state gambling laws.” This uncertainty matters more than any growth figures.

V. Which area has the most potential? My answer is sports, not finance

This may go against intuition, but I’m increasingly convinced.

Sports has the most potential because it’s a “legal alternative to gambling,” with the largest TAM and the highest repeat usage. Retail users also face the smallest information disadvantage—everyone knows little about sports, so they’re still willing to bet. The World Cup and the NFL are just the beginning.

I don’t think financial events (CPI, FOMC, earnings) can become a retail traffic pool, because the odds are too “efficient”: informed professional players will keep winning money from retail users, who won’t come back after a couple of tries. These markets are more like hedging tools and information derivatives. They’ll be big, but they won’t be lively.

Politics, meanwhile, comes around once every four years and has the most settlement disputes.

VI. What I would personally trade

I’d only trade financial events, and only those with clear settlement rules and enough depth: CPI, FOMC decisions, and earnings from large companies. I wouldn’t touch sports: fees, an information disadvantage, and emotional trading—all three are in play. I wouldn’t touch politics either, given the settlement disputes and regulatory uncertainty.

But there’s one reality to accept first: research shows that 70% of top profitable wallets are bots. In other words, if you enter the market, you’re effectively “the one providing liquidity to market-making bots.” Think that through before talking about the experience.

The $1.8 billion proves that “event trading” is real demand, but it doesn’t prove Polymarket is the winner. The moat in this sector isn’t “events”—it’s regulatory access, market-making depth, and distribution channels. Kalshi has secured the first two, plus Robinhood’s distribution; Polymarket has crypto-native liquidity, but it still hasn’t cleared the regulatory hurdle.

Would you start with CPI or sports? Share your first trade in the comments.

View Original

This page contains third-party content and does not constitute any advice, nor does it represent Gate's endorsement of such views. For details, please see disclaimer.