2026 Crypto Funding Reshuffle: Game and DePIN Are Dead, Prediction Market Duo Takes 18% of All Year's Funding with Two Deals

marsbitPublicado em 2026-05-08Última atualização em 2026-05-08

Resumo

Cryptocurrency Funding in 2026: Gaming & DePIN Falter as Prediction Markets Dominate Data from the first four months of 2026 reveals a stark shift in crypto venture funding. The gaming and DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks) sectors have seen capital nearly dry up. In contrast, the "Consumer" category, led by two massive deals for prediction market platforms Kalshi ($1B) and Polymarket ($600M), captured a significant share. These two deals alone accounted for 18% of the year's total $8.65 billion raised and exceeded the combined funding of all 47 DeFi projects. Overall, the $8.65B across 305 deals is misleading. A March surge to $4.57B was largely due to two major acquisitions (BVNK at $1.8B and Kalshi). Excluding these, the underlying monthly funding rate is approximately $1B, indicating continued softness. The "Payments" and "Consumer" sectors together consumed 72% of all capital. Another notable trend is the rise of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), with 48 deals nearly matching the 57 seed-round investments. This signals a market pivot from funding new ideas to consolidating around established leaders. The most active investors so far in 2026 are Coinbase Ventures (18 deals), Tether (13 deals), Animoca Brands (11 deals), and GSR (11 deals). Notably, a16z's pace has slowed significantly compared to previous years.

Author:Memento Research

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide TechFlow Introduction: Crypto funding data for the first four months of 2026 reveals a harsh reality: the Game and DePIN sectors are nearly starved of capital, while Kalshi and Polymarket, two prediction market companies, have taken more money than all DeFi projects combined for the entire year. More alarmingly, the number of M&A deals has already matched seed rounds, indicating a shift in capital from betting on new ideas to acquiring existing leaders.

Funding Overview: March's Surge Was an Illusion

From January 1st to May 6th, 2026, the crypto industry completed 305 funding rounds, totaling $8.65 billion. However, the "surge" to $4.57 billion in March was actually just two massive M&A deals: BVNK's $1.8 billion and Kalshi's $1.0 billion.

Excluding these two deals, the real funding pace is about $1 billion per month, even weaker than at the end of 2025.

Capital Flow: Payments and Consumer Absorb 72%

By sector breakdown:

Payments: $3.74 billion (56 deals)

Consumer: $2.48 billion (35 deals)

DeFi: $1.06 billion (47 deals, the highest number of transactions)

The Payments and Consumer sectors combined account for 72% of the year's total funding. Funding for Game and DePIN has nearly vanished.

Prediction Markets Dominate the Consumer Sector

Two prediction market companies accounted for 18% of the year's total funding:

Kalshi: $1.0 billion

Polymarket: $600 million

These two deals totaling $1.6 billion exceed the sum of all 47 DeFi funding rounds.

M&A Becomes Mainstream

M&A deals reached 48 (accounting for 23% of known-stage transactions), nearly matching the 57 seed rounds (27%). This cycle has shifted from investing in new ideas in early stages to acquiring industry leaders.

Investor Rankings Reshuffled

Most active funds in 2026:

Coinbase Ventures: 18 deals (ranked second during 2021-26 period)

Tether: 13 deals (new top lead investor)

Animoca Brands: 11 deals (ranked first during 2021-26 period)

GSR: 11 deals

a16z: 7 deals (a significant drop compared to ~200 deals during 2021-26 period)

Perguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, which two sectors took the majority of crypto funding in early 2026?

AThe Payments and Consumer sectors took the majority of crypto funding, together accounting for 72% of the total capital raised.

QWhat significant trend does the data reveal about mergers and acquisitions (M&A) compared to seed funding?

AThe data shows that M&A deals reached 48 (23% of known-stage deals), almost catching up to seed rounds at 57 deals (27%). This indicates a shift in the investment cycle from funding new ideas to acquiring established industry leaders.

QWhy was the spike in funding for March 2026 described as an 'illusion'?

AThe spike to $4.57 billion in March was largely an illusion because it was driven by just two mega-deals: an $1.8 billion acquisition of BVNK and a $1 billion deal with Kalshi. Removing these two transactions reveals a slower, more sluggish monthly funding pace of around $1 billion.

QHow did the funding for prediction market companies compare to the total funding for all DeFi projects in the period covered?

AThe two prediction market companies, Kalshi ($1 billion) and Polymarket ($600 million), together raised a combined $1.6 billion. This amount exceeded the total raised by all 47 DeFi projects, which was $1.06 billion.

QWhich investment firms were the most active in terms of deal count during early 2026, and how did this compare to their historical activity?

AIn early 2026, the most active investors by deal count were Coinbase Ventures (18 deals, historically ranked 2nd from 2021-26), Tether (13 deals, new top investor), Animoca Brands (11 deals, historically ranked 1st), GSR (11 deals), and a16z (7 deals, showing a significant decline from its historical ~200 deals between 2021-26).

Leituras Relacionadas

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

Marvell Technology's stock price surged from under $10 in 2016 to a record $290 in June 2026, fueled not by making GPUs, but by dominating AI infrastructure connectivity. This analysis argues the market misvalues MRVL as merely a smaller Broadcom in custom AI chips, overlooking its true, unique position. Marvell's core strength lies in enabling high-speed data flow for AI clusters through three interconnected businesses. First, it holds a commanding ~70% market share in high-speed optical DSPs (essential for data center light modules), a deep-moat business with accelerating growth. Second, its custom AI chip design business serves hyperscalers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google, with a significant revenue pipeline despite lower margins. Third, stable cash flows come from Ethernet switch chips and enterprise storage controllers. Together, they form a full-stack "AI data movement" platform. CEO Matt Murphy's transformative leadership since 2016, involving strategic divestments, key acquisitions (like Inphi for optical DSPs), and securing long-term agreements with major cloud providers, repositioned the company. A pivotal $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA in 2026 underscored Marvell's critical role in the AI ecosystem, particularly through collaborations like NVLink Fusion. While Marvell faces risks—including client concentration (losing the Amazon Trainium3 design), lower-margin business mix, competitive threats, insider selling, and complex supply chains—its fundamentals remain strong. The optical interconnect moat is widening with the acquisition of Celestial AI (photonics fabric), and financial metrics show accelerating revenue growth and operating leverage. With a PEG ratio suggesting undervaluation relative to its growth, the thesis is that the market undervalues Marvell's monopolistic position in AI "plumbing" while overemphasizing its competitive custom chip segment. The story transcends investing, symbolizing how in any complex system—from the internet to AI—the value of "connection" ultimately surpasses that of individual "nodes."

marsbitHá 19m

Ten-Thousand-Word Analysis: From $10 to $290, MRVL Wins the Entire AI Era by 'Not Making GPUs'

marsbitHá 19m

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

A discussion on Zhihu about "AI relay stations" shifted the niche developer topic of "cheap tokens" into broader user awareness. Users moved beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of these services to focus on practical concerns: Where do cheap tokens truly come from? Is the model being accessed the real one? Can relay stations see prompts, code, and API keys? For occasional users, are the risks worth it? The core debate centered less on price and more on trust. A primary worry is model authenticity—the risk of "model swapping," where users paying for a premium model might be routed to a cheaper one, creating an information asymmetry. Others argued that cost comparisons matter; while cheaper than official pay-as-you-go APIs, relay stations may not be the lowest-cost option versus subscriptions, domestic models, or free tiers, making user needs assessment crucial. Speculation about token sources ranged from legitimate bulk discounts to gray-area methods like account sharing or exploiting regional pricing. This opacity makes risk assessment difficult for users. Data security emerged as a critical concern, especially for enterprise use. When processing sensitive information like code, contracts, or client data, the inability to verify a relay station's data handling, retention, or access policies poses significant compliance and confidentiality risks. The evolving consensus suggests relay stations can be used cautiously for low-sensitivity, disposable tasks (e.g., summarizing public info, simple translation). However, they should not be the default for sensitive, professional, or production workflows involving proprietary data, Agents, or automated systems. Recommendations include avoiding large prepayments, not relying on a single service, using test prompts to monitor quality, anonymizing data where possible, and keeping official channels as backups. Ultimately, the discussion framed tokens not just as a billing unit but as a measure of real cost encompassing price, model integrity, data security, and service stability. The popularity of relay stations highlights user demand for affordable access, but the debate underscores a key trade-off: the savings from cheap tokens may come at the price of trust, transparency, and control over one's data and AI experience.

marsbitHá 49m

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

marsbitHá 49m

In-Depth Research Report on TradFi: The Convergence Wave of Crypto and Traditional Finance

In 2026, the crypto industry is undergoing a profound infrastructure-level transformation—TradFi assets are migrating on-chain at an unprecedented pace. According to CoinGecko's Q1 2026 report, the total value locked (TVL) of tokenized real-world assets (RWA) has surpassed $31 billion, a nearly 4x increase from $7.8 billion at the beginning of 2025, with the sector’s aggregate market capitalization reaching $19.3 billion. Among these, the market cap of tokenized stocks surged from $2 million to $486 million, with Q1 spot trading volume reaching $15.1 billion—a single quarter already surpassing the entire second half of 2025. RWA perpetual contract Q1 trading volume reached a staggering $524.8 billion, far exceeding the $313 billion for all of 2025. Meanwhile, BlackRock's BUIDL fund has reached $2.3 billion in scale and has filed for two new tokenized funds, signaling that the world's largest asset manager's tokenization strategy is evolving from pilot to product suite expansion. HTX, as a core participant in the crypto exchange sector, officially launched TradFi perpetual futures products including NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, META, and SPY in 2026, enabling crypto users to gain 24/7 trading access to core U.S. equities. Boston Consulting Group predicts that global tokenized asset scale could reach $16 trillion by 2030, while McKinsey offers a conservative estimate of approximately $2 trillion. The on-chain migration of TradFi assets is no longer a "future narrative" but a structural transformation unfolding in real time, as crypto exchanges evolve from single crypto asset trading platforms toward "multi-asset-class trading infrastructure."

HTX LearnHá 51m

In-Depth Research Report on TradFi: The Convergence Wave of Crypto and Traditional Finance

HTX LearnHá 51m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片