Polymarket reportedly seeks $1 billion at $20B

Polymarket is reportedly in preliminary talks with prospective investors about raising roughly $1 billion at a valuation above $20 billion.

Bloomberg reported the discussions on Aug. 4, citing people familiar with the private negotiations. 

The company has not announced a deal. A Polymarket spokesperson declined to comment on the report. The fundraising amount, valuation and investor group should therefore be treated as “preliminary” rather than completed financing.

A successful round would place Polymarket near Kalshi, its largest prediction market rival, which secured a $22 billion valuation in May. It would also continue the rapid rise in private valuations across an industry expanding from election contracts into sports, economics, crypto and other real world events.

Polymarket funding talks remain unconfirmed

The reported transaction remains at an early stage. No term sheet, closing date or final investor list has been released. Private funding discussions can change before completion, including the capital raised and the valuation investors ultimately accept.

Comparisons with Polymarket’s October 2025 valuation also require care. Bloomberg referred to a valuation of about $9 billion. However, Intercontinental Exchange’s official announcement said its planned investment reflected an approximate $8 billion valuation before the new capital was added. The figures may use different valuation bases and are not necessarily contradictory.

The April financing also combines reported and confirmed information. Bloomberg said Polymarket completed roughly $1 billion in financing at a $15 billion valuation, with D.E. Shaw and G Squared joining the investor group.

ICE separately confirmed a further $600 million investment on March 27 as part of a Polymarket equity raise. The New York Stock Exchange owner had already invested $1 billion in October 2025. ICE did not disclose the valuation attached to its March investment.

A valuation above $20 billion would be at least 33% higher than the reported April figure. It would also represent more than twice the valuation Bloomberg assigned to Polymarket’s October round.

U.S. expansion supports Polymarket’s valuation case

Polymarket’s return to the U.S. gives the company a regulated growth channel alongside its international platform, which uses crypto settlement.

The CFTC’s official registry lists QCX LLC, doing business as Polymarket US, as a designated contract market. The regulator records its designation date as July 9, 2025. The exchange has since submitted rule changes covering fees, liquidity programs, surveillance and trading procedures.

Bloomberg reported that Polymarket had opened its U.S. exchange following its April financing. Meanwhile, the company’s U.S. access page states that its app is being rolled out to users from a waitlist. This indicates that access may still be expanding in stages rather than being uniformly available.

Revenue growth provides another part of the reported valuation case, although the numbers remain private company metrics. Bloomberg’s sources said Polymarket’s annualized revenue had more than tripled since April to above $1.2 billion.

Reuters reported in June that the platform’s annualized revenue had passed $1 billion. An annualized figure extrapolates recent performance and is not the same as audited revenue collected across a completed financial year.

Trading data also shows that the U.S. venue is gaining activity. As crypto.news reported, Polymarket, Polymarket US and Kalshi generated a combined record of $50.6 billion in July volume.

Kalshi led with $37.7 billion. Polymarket US increased its volume by 54% to $5 billion, while Polymarket’s international venue fell 26% to $7.9 billion. The figures show faster U.S. growth, but they also show that the wider Polymarket business did not expand evenly.

Kalshi’s lead creates a demanding benchmark

Kalshi officially announced a $1 billion Series F round at a $22 billion valuation on May 7. Coatue led the financing, with participation from Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, IVP, Paradigm, Morgan Stanley and ARK Invest.

The company said institutional trading volume had risen 800% over six months. Kalshi also said its annualized trading volume increased from $52 billion to $178 billion. Those are company supplied trading figures and should not be confused with revenue.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported that Kalshi claimed more than 90% of U.S. prediction market activity when it announced the financing. Independent July data also showed Kalshi processing almost three times the combined volume of Polymarket’s international and U.S. venues.

Polymarket’s reported target would narrow the valuation gap despite Kalshi’s larger trading volume. Prospective investors may be assigning value to Polymarket’s international reach, crypto settlement infrastructure, brand recognition and relationship with ICE.

Volume alone cannot determine a private company’s worth. Fees, customer retention, compliance costs, market composition and activity after major sporting or political events can affect revenue quality. July open interest fell after the World Cup ended even as monthly trading reached a record.

Regulatory disputes could influence the funding round

Polymarket US holds a federal designation, but several states argue that sports event contracts amount to gambling and remain subject to state laws.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board filed a civil complaint against Polymarket and QCX in January. The regulator asked a state court to stop the companies from offering what it described as unlicensed wagering in Nevada.

As previously reported, Polymarket and Kalshi are involved in a broader dispute over whether the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over federally registered event contract platforms.

North Carolina has followed a different route. A law signed in July recognizes CFTC regulated prediction markets and establishes a 6% tax on their trading fee revenue beginning in 2027.

These disputes do not prevent Polymarket from discussing financing. However, they could affect market access, legal costs and how investors value the company’s U.S. growth plans.