Wall Street's Top Quantitative Firm Jump Trading Enters the Prediction Market, Is the Era of Retail Investors Over?

marsbitPublished on 2026-02-10Last updated on 2026-02-10

Abstract

Wall Street quantitative trading giant Jump Trading is entering the prediction market sector through strategic partnerships with leading platforms Kalshi and Polymarket. In exchange for providing liquidity, Jump will receive equity stakes in both companies—a fixed share in Kalshi and a performance-based stake in Polymarket tied to its U.S. trading volume. Prediction markets have faced persistent liquidity challenges, with platforms often experiencing shallow order books and wide bid-ask spreads outside of major events. While Kalshi previously engaged SIG as a market maker and Polymarket relied on decentralized incentives and algorithmic traders, both platforms have struggled to maintain stable, deep liquidity consistently. The equity-for-liquidity model aligns incentives: platforms gain access to Jump’s sophisticated, low-latency market-making capabilities, while Jump positions itself to benefit from the sector’s growth—Kalshi and Polymarket are valued at approximately $11B and $9B, respectively. Market making in prediction markets offers potential profits from spreads, incentives, and arbitrage, but it also carries significant risks, including event-driven volatility, limited hedging options, and regulatory uncertainty. While Jump’s advanced infrastructure and cross-asset experience may allow it to capture alpha and leverage equity upside, smaller players face high barriers to entry. The move signals a maturation of the prediction market space, with institutional partici...

Author:Zhou, ChainCatcher

According to Bloomberg, the world's top quantitative trading company Jump Trading will provide liquidity to the two leading prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket in exchange for a small equity stake.

It is reported that its agreement with Kalshi involves a fixed equity share, while its stake in Polymarket will grow with the trading volume it provides for its U.S. business.

For Jump Trading , the potential value of this equity is substantial. Previous reports indicated that Kalshi is valued at approximately 110 billion USD, and Polymarket at about 90 billion USD, with the sector still expanding rapidly.

Jump may deploy its dedicated team of over 20 people to provide professional market-making services, aiming to enhance the platform's trading experience and capture long-term potential gains.

1、The Liquidity Bottleneck of Prediction Markets

Liquidity has always been a key bottleneck for the growth of prediction markets.

Kalshi and Polymarket , as the current two leading players, faced similar challenges in their early stages: trading volume surges during hot events, but non-popular contracts often have shallow depth and wide spreads. Large user orders can experience significant slippage or even fail to execute.

Among them, Kalshi introduced the professional institution Susquehanna International Group (SIG) as its primary institutional market maker in 2024 .

SIG established a trading department focused on event contracts. As a veteran options giant with professional algorithms and continuous quoting capabilities, it significantly improved Kalshi 's trading experience, particularly excelling in sports and economic data contracts.

In addition, Kalshi also provides some contra-side liquidity through internal affiliated trading entities to stabilize pricing and fill gaps.

Simultaneously, the platform launched a liquidity incentive program, offering cash rewards, reduced fees, and relaxed position limits to eligible participants, further attracting algorithmic players and large investors.

Polymarket 's situation is more crypto-native. As an on-chain order book platform based on Polygon , it initially relied mainly on decentralized incentive mechanisms to aggregate liquidity.

Official documentation states that the platform uses a Maker Rebates program to return a portion of fees daily in USDC , attracting automated market-making bots and independent liquidity providers. These algorithmic players actively place orders on new markets or热门 contracts, earning spreads and rebate income.

However, this model also带来 fragmentation and instability. For example, when event热度 subsides, market-making bots actively withdraw orders, causing spreads to widen rapidly and depth to shrink quickly.

Furthermore, Polymarket has also experimented with internal market-making teams and community-driven LP mechanisms. But overall, its liquidity is characterized by sufficient depth for blockbuster events, while relying on retail investors and algorithms for short-term profit-seeking at other times.

The commonality between the two platforms at this stage is that liquidity highly depends on a few key participants and incentive-driven retail力量.

2、Equity in Exchange for Liquidity?

The prediction market sector, although experiencing explosive growth in 20242025 (especially driven by elections and sports events), is本质上 still a relatively liquidity-scarce emerging market, far from the depth and stability of traditional finance.

Kalshi and Polymarket were able to reach equity-for-liquidity agreements with Jump Trading because their demands are highly aligned as the sector matures, which was almost impossible in the early stages.

Now, after several years of development, the two platforms have accumulated considerable trading volume and valuation, but have also exposed the limits of incentive mechanisms.

Past reliance on cash subsidies, fee rebates, and community algorithmic players could briefly boost depth during blockbuster events but struggled to form lasting professional capacity.

The platforms also understand that these measures alone are insufficient to support the transition from event-driven to daily infrastructure.

They need sustained, low-latency, risk-controlled institutional-grade market-making capabilities, which is precisely the forte of traditional quantitative giants.

Kalshi and Polymarket currently have ample funding, but cash cannot buy the long-term commitment of top market makers. Equity cooperation is different; it directly aligns interests: the platforms exchange minority equity for Jump Trading's core resources,相当于 sharing future growth红利 with partners in advance.

Especially for Polymarket, as an on-chain native platform, it has higher requirements for market makers' crypto infrastructure and on-chain execution experience.

It is reported that Jump Trading established a crypto division in 2021 and has deeply participated in the DeFi and Solana ecosystems. Therefore, it has accumulated rich practical experience in on-chain order books, low-latency market making, cross-chain asset management, and risk control, which aligns well with Polymarket 's Polygon + USDC settlement model.

Jump Trading 's motivation is equally clear. As a quantitative company with strong infrastructure across multiple asset classes like stocks, options, and crypto, it also sees the structural opportunity in prediction markets.

The model of exchanging equity for professional capacity is essentially a hybrid innovation combining venture capital with traditional market-making business.

It allows platforms to lock in support from top players without diluting too much equity, and also enables Jump to leverage potential valuation upside with minimal cash cost.

3、Is the Market-Making Business Easy?

Providing market-making services for prediction markets is currently a worthwhile opportunity for top quantitative institutions to布局, but it is far from easy or guaranteed profit. It is more like a high-potential, high-risk strategic investment rather than a daily cash cow business.

Because the profit path in prediction markets seems clear, but practical operation is full of challenges.

The positive aspect is that market makers can earn spreads through continuous quoting, cash or USDC incentives provided by the platform, cross-platform arbitrage, and profits from structural mispricing common in event contracts.

These Alpha sources are becoming increasingly scarce in mature financial markets but are still relatively abundant in prediction markets, especially in the retail-dominated phase, where edge returns can sometimes reach high levels.

Some industry views suggest that the risk-adjusted returns of this asset class may be superior to traditional high-frequency or options trading.

However, as mentioned earlier, liquidity for prediction events is highly fragmented.

Market makers must provide two-sided quotes around the clock, but profits are almost non-existent during idle times, and during peak times, they are shared with more algorithms and professional traders.

Some observations indicate that market-making profit margins have been compressed from the common 4-5% in sports and entertainment events to around 2% .

Additionally, breaking news, black swan events, or information asymmetry can instantly cause directional inventory losses, and the contract expiration settlement特性 makes hedging tools extremely limited; regulatory uncertainty further increases the difficulty, such as ongoing state-level legal disputes over Kalshi 's sports contracts, and the compliance pressure facing Polymarket 's U.S. business restart.

However, for Jump Trading , it possesses low-latency infrastructure, cross-asset risk models, and strong capital, enabling it to efficiently capture spreads and arbitrage.

More importantly, the equity value of Kalshi or Polymarket likely still has room for appreciation. This is essentially a play of leveraging a high-growth sector with low cash cost.

For small and medium-sized or independent market makers, the situation is much more difficult. Not only is the infrastructure门槛极高 and the learning curve steep, but they are also easily squeezed out by large institutions on spreads.

Overall, this business is highly concentrated among a few top players, making it difficult for retail investors or small teams to get a share.

Conclusion

At present, market-making services are still in a stage where "布局 is greater than immediate returns." Jump Trading 's entry is a footnote to this judgment: top institutions are willing to heavily invest teams and resources precisely because they see the long-term structural opportunity of prediction markets as an emerging asset class.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason for Jump Trading's entry into the prediction market space, according to the article?

AJump Trading is entering the prediction market by providing liquidity to Kalshi and Polymarket in exchange for equity, aiming to capture long-term potential gains and leverage its professional market-making capabilities.

QWhat are the key liquidity challenges faced by prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket?

AThe key liquidity challenges include thin depth and wide bid-ask spreads for non-popular contracts, significant slippage for large orders, and reliance on散户 and algorithmic players, leading to instability when event热度 subsides.

QHow does the equity-for-liquidity model benefit both Jump Trading and the prediction market platforms?

AThe model allows platforms to secure long-term, professional market-making services from a top quant firm without significant cash outlays, while Jump Trading gains potential equity upside in high-growth companies with minimal cash investment.

QWhat advantages does Jump Trading have in providing market-making services for prediction markets?

AJump Trading has advantages such as low-latency infrastructure, cross-asset risk models, strong capital, and experience in crypto and DeFi ecosystems, enabling efficient capture of spreads and arbitrage opportunities.

QWhy is the market-making business in prediction markets considered high-risk and challenging?

AIt is high-risk due to高度分散 liquidity, compressed profit margins (down to around 2%), directional inventory risks from sudden news or black swan events, limited hedging tools, and regulatory uncertainties in某些 jurisdictions.

Related Reads

Behind Musk and Huang Jen-hsun's 'AI Factories', an Unseen Battle for Freshwater Has Begun

Behind the "AI factories" of Elon Musk and Jensen Huang lies a hidden battle for a critical resource: fresh water. As AI models like ChatGPT and Claude process billions of prompts daily, they consume vast amounts of water for cooling. By 2030, global AI infrastructure is projected to use 9.3 trillion liters annually—enough to meet the basic needs of 1.3 billion people. This "water grab" stems from the massive heat generated by high-powered GPUs. Over 70% of data centers use evaporative cooling systems, where water absorbs heat and evaporates into the atmosphere, depleting local groundwater. Training models like GPT-4 can consume over 600 million liters of water. Tech giants like Google and Microsoft report skyrocketing water usage, sparking conflicts with local communities over resources. A flashpoint occurred in Memphis, Tennessee, where Musk's xAI built the Colossus supercomputer. It draws nearly 3.8 million liters of drinking water daily from local aquifers, leading to public outrage and legal action. In response, xAI is building an $80 million water recycling plant to use treated wastewater instead. Facing pressure, companies like Microsoft promote "waterless" closed-loop cooling systems. However, these systems increase electricity consumption by 20-30%, shifting the water burden to power plants, which require immense cooling water themselves—a case of indirect water footprint transfer. For China's AI industry, this crisis offers a strategic warning and opportunity. Instead of replicating the West's resource-intensive model, China can leverage its "East Data, West Computing" policy to locate data centers in cooler, water-rich regions like Guizhou. Furthermore, developing lightweight edge computing for smart homes and embodied AI robots can drastically reduce the need for constant cloud queries, cutting both water and energy consumption at the source. The freshwater war underscores a fundamental question: Will AI be a tool for human advancement or a silicon-based monster competing for our planet's last drops of clean water? The answer is becoming clearer as the water vapor rises.

marsbit21m ago

Behind Musk and Huang Jen-hsun's 'AI Factories', an Unseen Battle for Freshwater Has Begun

marsbit21m ago

AGI is Just One Step Away

The article discusses Anthropic's release of the Fable 5 model, a heavily restricted version of its powerful Mythos model. Initially unveiled in April, Mythos reportedly identified over 10,000 high-risk vulnerabilities for 50 enterprise clients, causing significant concern. Due to its dangerous capabilities in areas like autonomous cyber-attacks and biochemical weapons design guidance (classified as CB-1 level), the unaltered Mythos 5 remains limited to about 200 vetted entities like government agencies. Fable 5, released with a safety classifier, demonstrates extraordinary performance, leading benchmarks in coding (SWE-Bench Pro), software engineering, and research. It exhibits true "long-horizon agency," autonomously planning and executing complex, multi-step tasks like migrating 50 million lines of code in a day, moving beyond simple question-answering. The article positions Fable 5 at OpenAI's Level 3 ("Agent") and progressing toward Level 4 ("Innovator"), suggesting AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is within reach, potentially 18-24 months away. To mitigate risks, Anthropic implemented a two-layer safety "cage": a silent routing system that redirects dangerous queries to a weaker model, and a mandatory 30-day data retention policy for all Mythos traffic to detect patterns of malicious use. Despite its high cost ($10/$50 per million input/output tokens), the model targets the enterprise market, where its unparalleled productivity and defensive capabilities against AI-powered cyber threats justify the premium. This signals a market maturation where top-tier AI becomes a strategic, high-value tool for businesses, potentially widening the gap with consumer-focused models and accelerating the rise of "one-person companies" while disrupting labor markets.

marsbit33m ago

AGI is Just One Step Away

marsbit33m ago

AI Investors' 2026 Anxiety: When Models Devour Everything, What Moat Is Left for Startups?

In 2026, a wave of investor anxiety questions the defensibility of AI startups as models improve, fearing that most companies are just "thin wrappers" destined to be absorbed by foundation models or chipmakers. The author argues against this despair, positing that true moats lie not in benchmark performance but in areas models cannot easily reach. The logic of despair is that if models excel at all measurable tasks, only compute and cutting-edge model weights hold lasting value. However, the essay contends that the most valuable work is inherently "untrainable." Benchmarks measure what can be measured and thus optimized for, but real-world correctness often resides in private, complex systems. Examples include legacy codebases, intricate legal transactions, or hospital workflows. This kind of correctness is proprietary, costly to establish, and cannot be validated quickly—it requires time and trust within an organization. As models commodify visible, measurable tasks from both above (labs absorbing scaffolding) and below (saturation by cheaper models), value shifts to "untrainable ground." This encompasses work where correctness is a private truth, locked behind integration barriers, licenses, liability frameworks, and entrenched user habits. Trust and adoption are slow, human-centric processes that smarter models cannot accelerate. Successful companies defend their position by embedding deeply into client operations, owning the definition of "good" within a specific domain (e.g., Harvey in law, OpenEvidence in medicine), and pricing on outcomes rather than tokens. While labs compete fiercely, they are incentivized to keep the application layer vibrant. The future belongs not to those competing on generic benchmarks but to those navigating unscoreable terrain, doing the "unsexy work" of translation between models and messy human realities. The most cited benchmark scores are thus maps of territory about to become worthless, signaling who will lose the right to define what counts as good.

marsbit2h ago

AI Investors' 2026 Anxiety: When Models Devour Everything, What Moat Is Left for Startups?

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片