Polymarket acquires Brahma to fix ‘liquidity imbalance’: Report

ambcryptoPubblicato 2026-03-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-19

Introduzione

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.

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

Wall Street's 'Compliance Hunt': The Great Stablecoin Reserve Migration

In a concentrated move over the past week, several Wall Street giants have advanced their tokenized money market fund initiatives, signaling a strategic shift driven by impending U.S. stablecoin regulations. JPMorgan Chase launched its second such fund, JLTXX, on Ethereum, explicitly targeting future stablecoin issuer reserve needs. Concurrently, Franklin Templeton partnered with Kraken to integrate its BENJI tokenized funds onto the exchange platform for use as collateral and cash management tools. BlackRock further solidified its position by filing for two new tokenized funds with the SEC, aiming to convert its massive traditional stablecoin custody business into a tokenized model. These parallel developments represent a multi-pronged institutional "compliance hunt" to capture future crypto liquidity. BlackRock and JPMorgan are focusing on the backend, preparing to serve as the core reserve and settlement infrastructure for compliant stablecoins as outlined by the GENIUS Act. This act defines strict "qualified reserve asset" requirements for stablecoin backing while prohibiting interest payments to holders. Franklin Templeton and Kraken, however, are exploiting a potential regulatory gap. By offering a tokenized fund (BENJI) that is not a stablecoin, they aim to provide yield-bearing, collateralizable digital cash instruments, circumventing GENIUS Act's ban on stablecoin yield. The impending CLARITY Act, which will delineate digital asset market structure, is seen as a complementary piece to GENIUS. Its treatment of passive income could solidify the niche for instruments like BENJI. With conservative market size estimates for tokenized money market funds reaching hundreds of billions by 2030, Wall Street institutions are positioning themselves early, using on-chain settlement as a key competitive differentiator to offer superior liquidity and composability for the next generation of dollar reserves.

marsbit37 min fa

Wall Street's 'Compliance Hunt': The Great Stablecoin Reserve Migration

marsbit37 min fa

Altman Drops Bombshell While Musk is Away: He Once Wanted His Children to Inherit OpenAI

In a California court, Sam Altman testified for the first time in the ongoing legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI. Altman made a striking claim: Musk once suggested that control of OpenAI could one day be passed down to his children. This statement reframes the long-standing conflict not as a simple governance dispute but as a foundational power struggle. Altman sought to counter the narrative that OpenAI betrayed its original non-profit, idealistic mission. He argued that from the beginning, it was Musk who sought increasing control over the organization, including a larger equity stake and ultimate decision-making authority. Altman opposed this, citing OpenAI's core principle that AGI should not be controlled by any single individual. He also addressed the key point of contention about OpenAI's shift to a for-profit structure, claiming Musk was aware of and initially supportive of exploring such a model to secure the massive funding needed for advanced AI research. Altman framed the change as a practical necessity, not a betrayal. Further testimony revealed internal concerns after Musk left OpenAI's board, with worries he might take retaliatory action. Altman critiqued Musk's management style as unsuitable for a research lab, damaging morale and culture. Throughout his testimony, Altman's focus appeared to shift from technological idealism to the realities of organizational governance and resource requirements. Regarding his brief ouster in 2023, Altman stated he seriously considered joining Microsoft but ultimately returned because OpenAI was too important to abandon.

marsbit1 h fa

Altman Drops Bombshell While Musk is Away: He Once Wanted His Children to Inherit OpenAI

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片