Intercontinental Exchange has signaled it may put more money into Polymarket’s next funding round after building a $1.64 billion stake in the prediction market platform.
Bloomberg reported Thursday that ICE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Sprecher said the New York Stock Exchange parent would consider participating if its involvement could help Polymarket complete the round.
“We’ll look at it, if it would help the round in order to have our imprimatur on it, we are always interested,” Sprecher told Bloomberg Television.
ICE may join Polymarket’s new funding round
Polymarket is seeking fresh capital at a valuation above $20 billion, according to Bloomberg, more than twice the valuation attached to the company in October. The report said the platform has continued to draw investor interest as prediction markets expand across sports, politics, geopolitics and other event based contracts.
ICE has already participated in two Polymarket funding rounds, with Bloomberg putting the exchange operator’s stake at $1.64 billion by March. Sprecher said the relationship was designed partly to allow the companies to exchange information and expertise, instead of turning ICE into a regular investor in technology startups.
As crypto.news reported in March, ICE invested another $600 million in Polymarket as part of a previously announced commitment of up to $2 billion. ICE said at the time that the investment was not expected to have a material effect on its financial results or capital return plans.
“The reality is we’re not a venture firm,” Sprecher said Thursday, describing the Polymarket investment as a relationship built around the “transfer of information and expertise.”
The distinction is important to ICE’s approach, according to Sprecher, because the company operates some of the world’s largest financial exchanges and clearing businesses and does not plan to build a portfolio of venture investments simply because technology companies are attracting capital.
Polymarket, meanwhile, has continued adding infrastructure around its prediction market business. A March report on Polymarket’s Brahma acquisition detailed its purchase of the DeFi infrastructure startup after earlier acquisitions of QCEX and Dome. The report said the transactions added U.S. regulatory access, developer infrastructure and onchain execution capabilities to Polymarket’s operations.
Prediction markets are drawing more institutional capital
Prediction markets have attracted more attention since the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Bloomberg reported, as traders increasingly use yes or no contracts to speculate on outcomes ranging from elections and sporting events to geopolitical developments.
Investor money has followed that activity. Polymarket is now seeking funding at a valuation above $20 billion, while rival Kalshi has also completed major fundraising rounds as both companies compete for traders and distribution partnerships.
Robinhood Markets has become another major participant in the sector. During the same Bloomberg Television coverage, Chief Executive Officer Vlad Tenev said prediction markets should remain under federal supervision through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not individual state regulators.
The question has become increasingly important as several states attempt to apply their own rules to sports and election linked contracts. According to Bloomberg, some state authorities contend that certain contracts should fall under state gambling or gaming laws, while prediction market companies have argued that federally regulated event contracts belong under the CFTC.
A July report on North Carolina’s new law showed one state taking the federal route. Governor Josh Stein signed legislation recognizing CFTC authority over prediction markets and allowing federally registered platforms, including Kalshi and Polymarket, to operate in the state from 2027. The law also imposed a 6% state tax on trading fee revenue generated by the platforms.
State challenges keep the CFTC fight active
Other states have continued to challenge prediction market operators, leaving courts to consider how federal derivatives law interacts with state gambling powers.
Tenev told Bloomberg that he expects event contracts to remain a viable business even if the jurisdictional fight eventually reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and the court gives states more control over some products.
“I don’t think it’s going to be, ‘prediction markets are gone,’” Tenev said. He added that a legal ruling could establish a boundary that would require companies such as Robinhood to adapt their offerings.
The dispute has already produced different regulatory approaches across the country. North Carolina has explicitly recognized federal oversight, while lawsuits and enforcement actions elsewhere have challenged sports related contracts offered through federally regulated platforms.
Alongside prediction markets, the CFTC has also started allowing new forms of crypto derivatives to enter regulated U.S. venues.
In May, Kalshi received approval to launch the first regulated Bitcoin perps in the United States. The same report said Coinbase received a no action letter allowing certain crypto perpetual futures products to use Bitcoin, Ether and stablecoins as collateral.
The approvals have created another point of comparison between newer crypto trading products and the traditional futures contracts offered by established derivatives exchanges.
ICE remains cautious on perpetual futures
Perpetual futures became another focus of Sprecher’s interview after President Donald Trump said earlier this week that U.S. regulators were working on a route to bring Hyperliquid into the country in a fully compliant form.
Hyperliquid is best known for perpetual futures, leveraged derivatives that allow traders to take positions on crypto and other asset prices without an expiration date. Bloomberg reported that the product category has moved outside its long standing crypto use case, particularly during the Iran war.
During periods when traditional oil futures venues operated by CME Group and ICE were closed, Bloomberg said perpetual contracts became one of the available ways for investors to trade oil exposure.
Sprecher said ICE is not currently pursuing the products because the company’s core derivatives customers primarily use futures for hedging. Traditional futures contracts with different expiration dates also produce a forward pricing curve that companies can use to manage future costs and prices, while perpetual contracts do not create the same structure.
“Our client base is really a hedging client base, and there’s no forward pricing curve that is created by a perpetual future,” Sprecher told Bloomberg.
For ICE, Sprecher said the product does not fit the customers the exchange primarily serves, describing perpetual futures as “really a speculative” product that “doesn’t cater to our distribution or client base.”
