Polymarket acquires Brahma to fix ‘liquidity imbalance’: Report

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-03-19Actualizado a 2026-03-19

Resumen

Polymarket has acquired crypto infrastructure firm Brahma to address liquidity imbalances and improve its on-chain trading systems. While popular markets like elections attract significant activity, niche markets suffer from low participation and unreliable pricing. The acquisition aims to distribute liquidity more evenly and enhance platform efficiency. Despite rapid growth and a valuation of $18–20 billion, driven by the 2024 election cycle, Polymarket faces inconsistent trading activity and a recent drop in market share. Competitor Kalshi, a regulated non-crypto platform, briefly captured 66% market share during the election. Polymarket continues to focus on crypto, with plans for a native token, contrasting with Kalshi’s traditional approach.

In a surprising shift, Polymarket has moved beyond simply hosting bets on future events and is now working to build the full infrastructure behind those wagers.

According to reports, Polymarket has acquired Brahma, a company specializing in crypto and DeFi infrastructure. This means Polymarket wants better technology to make its platform faster, smoother, and more on-chain.

Polymarket has grown rapidly, now valued at an estimated $18–20 billion, boosted by heavy activity during the 2024 elections. Yet with that growth come new challenges.

What is Polymarket trying to revamp with Brahma?

One of the core problems is liquidity imbalance. This means popular wagers, like elections or major sports events, attract a lot of money and activity.

Whereas, smaller or niche wagers struggle because not enough people are betting on them. That makes prices less reliable and the markets less useful.

Citing examples, Fortune added,

Larger event contracts, like those in sports or politics, easily bring lots of money into the pool. But smaller wagers focused on niche areas such as, for instance, the outcome of a bowling match in Spain, struggle to amass a sizable amount of liquidity.

Therefore, by acquiring Brahma, Polymarket is trying to fix this by improving how liquidity is distributed across markets. The plan also focuses on making trading more efficient and strengthening its blockchain-based system.

Remarking on this initiative, Shayne Coplan, founder and CEO of Polymarket, told Fortune,

Building reliable infrastructure across blockchain networks and traditional financial rails is hard—there are no shortcuts.

That said, Brahma, founded in 2021, has already processed over $1 billion in transactions, and by bringing its team in-house, Polymarket is effectively shutting down Brahma’s external operations to focus entirely on its growth.

Polymarket’s metrics paint a confusing picture

However, the platform’s internal data suggests that growth is not entirely balanced. While more capital is flowing into the system, as seen in the steady rise in Open Interest, actual trading activity remains inconsistent.

Source: Dune

This gap shows that users place long-term bets but trade inconsistently, resulting in low liquidity and one-sided markets.

Even though the platform became very popular during the 2024 election cycle, its dominance didn’t last. Its market share dropped sharply from over 61% to around 32% as the hype faded. However, at press time, Polymarket’s stock price stood at $141.60, marking a more than 20% increase year-to-date.

Is Polymarket losing ground against Kalshi?

In fact, during the 2024 election, its U.S.-based competitor Kalshi took advantage of the slowdown, briefly capturing about 66% market share and handling nearly $1 billion in weekly trading volume.

This competition reflects two very different paths. Kalshi follows a fully regulated approach with no blockchain, DeFi, or token layer.

Polymarket, in contrast, is doubling down on crypto. Besides Brahma, the platform’s CEO is also hinting at a potential POLY token. With a possible 2026 launch, it acts as a strong incentive for users, something regulated platforms like Kalshi are struggling to offer.


Final Summary

  • The Brahma acquisition shows that fixing liquidity and market efficiency is now more important than just attracting users.
  • Competition from regulated players like Kalshi adds pressure, especially as they gain ground during periods of low hype.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the primary reason Polymarket acquired Brahma, according to the report?

APolymarket acquired Brahma to fix the 'liquidity imbalance' on its platform by improving how liquidity is distributed across markets, making trading more efficient, and strengthening its blockchain-based system.

QWhat specific problem does the 'liquidity imbalance' cause for smaller wagers on Polymarket?

ASmaller or niche wagers struggle to attract enough betting activity, which makes their prices less reliable and the markets less useful due to low liquidity.

QHow did Polymarket's market share change after the hype of the 2024 election cycle faded?

APolymarket's market share dropped sharply from over 61% to around 32% after the hype of the 2024 election cycle faded.

QWhich competitor briefly captured about 66% market share during Polymarket's slowdown, and what is its key operational difference?

AKalshi, Polymarket's U.S.-based competitor, briefly captured about 66% market share. Its key difference is that it follows a fully regulated approach with no blockchain, DeFi, or token layer.

QWhat potential incentive is Polymarket's CEO hinting at to attract users, and how does it contrast with regulated platforms?

APolymarket's CEO is hinting at a potential POLY token, which acts as a strong incentive for users. This is something regulated platforms like Kalshi struggle to offer.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). The market reaction highlights a divergence: while asset-backed pre-IPO tokens plummeted, purely speculative pre-IPO futures contracts, which are bilateral bets on future IPO prices with no claim to actual shares, remained relatively stable as they are unaffected by the transfer restrictions. The industry is split on the implications. Some believe the fundamental logic of pre-IPO token trading is broken if leading companies reject SPV-held shares, potentially causing a domino effect. Others, like Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, argue that buyers of such unofficial tokens always knowingly accepted the risk of non-recognition by the company. The statements serve as a stark risk warning and a corrective measure for a market where valuations for some AI-related pre-IPO tokens had soared to irrational levels, far exceeding recent funding round valuations.

marsbitHace 39 min(s)

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbitHace 39 min(s)

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuations (e.g., Anthropic's token hitting a $1.4 trillion implied valuation) far exceeded recent official funding rounds. Opinions are split: some believe this undermines the core logic of pre-IPO token trading if top companies reject SPVs, while others argue buyers always assumed this legal risk when accessing unofficial channels. The statements serve as a stark warning and a potential catalyst for market de-leveraging and clearer boundaries.

Odaily星球日报Hace 42 min(s)

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报Hace 42 min(s)

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

"AI Membership: The Hidden Cost Pushing Workers Toward 'Poverty'" The widespread corporate push for AI adoption is creating a hidden financial burden for employees. Companies, from giants like Alibaba to small firms, are mandating AI use, often tying token consumption to KPIs, but frequently refuse to cover the costs. Workers are forced to pay for subscriptions out of pocket to stay competitive and avoid being replaced. Front-end developer Long Shen spends up to 2000 RMB monthly on tools like Cursor and ChatGPT Plus, seeing it as a necessary 3% salary investment to handle 90% of his coding tasks. While it boosted his performance and led to promotions, he now faces idle time at work, pretending to be busy. Designer Peng Peng navigates strict company firewalls by using personal devices and accounts for AI image generation tools like Midjourney, spending hundreds monthly without reimbursement, while her boss demands faster, more numerous revisions. The pressure creates workplace anxiety and suspicion. Programmer Li Huahua, after a friend's experience of raised KPIs following AI success, fears being branded a "traitor" for using it yet worries about falling behind if she doesn't. The dynamic allows management to demand results without understanding the tools or covering expenses, treating employees like AI "agents." While some, like entrepreneur Jin Tu, find high value in paid AI, building entire systems and winning competitions, for most, it's a trap. Free tools like Kimi and Doubao are introducing fees, closing off alternatives. The initial efficiency gains individual advantage, but as AI becomes ubiquitous, the personal edge disappears, workloads increase, and a cycle of dependency begins. Workers like Long Shen realize they cannot maintain AI-generated code without AI, making stopping harder than continuing to pay. The tool promising liberation is instead becoming a compulsory, costly chain in the modern workplace.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire: The Successors

"SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire and Its Heirs" explores the unconventional succession narrative within SK Group, South Korea's second-largest conglomerate, following SK Hynix's dramatic market rise. Unlike traditional chaebol scripts prioritizing the eldest son, ownership, and political marriages, Chairman Choi Tae-won's three children from his first marriage are charting distinct paths. The eldest daughter, Choi Yun-jeong, is considered the most visible candidate. With a background in biology, consulting, and a PhD, she holds executive roles at SK Bioscience and SK Inc.'s growth strategy unit, focusing on biopharma and new businesses. Her marriage is to an AI infrastructure entrepreneur, not a traditional chaebol heir. The second daughter, Choi Min-jeong, took a unique route by voluntarily serving as a South Korean naval officer, including a tour in the Gulf of Aden. She later worked on policy and strategy for SK Hynix in Washington D.C. before co-founding an AI-driven healthcare startup in San Francisco. She married a former U.S. Marine Corps officer, connecting the family to U.S. defense and policy networks. The son, Choi In-geun, who has Type 1 diabetes, followed a more classic preparatory path with a physics degree and a stint at SK E&S but left to join McKinsey's Seoul office. He remains publicly silent and holds no SK shares, defying the traditional "crown prince" archetype. Their paths unfold against the backdrop of their parents' high-profile, contentious divorce and a record-setting asset division lawsuit. The article argues that as SK Hynix becomes a geopolitical asset in the AI era, the conventional rules of chaebol inheritance are changing. The heirs are being groomed not simply to take over, but to navigate a complex global landscape defined by AI, biotech, geopolitics, and policy, forging legitimacy through their own expertise and networks rather than birth order alone.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire: The Successors

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片