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

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbitHace 48 min(s)

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbitHace 48 min(s)

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbitHace 57 min(s)

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbitHace 57 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片