The End of Polymarket’s Free Era: A Multi-Party博弈 Over “Charging”
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The End of Polymarket’s Free Era: A Multi-Party博弈 Over “Charging”
Previously, only crypto and sports contracts were charged; after this expansion, the sole remaining “free zone” is geopolitics.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Kabuda, TechFlow
The 2024 U.S. presidential election catapulted Polymarket into global prominence—thanks to zero trading fees and $3.3 billion in total wagering volume—making it synonymous with prediction markets worldwide.
Eighteen months later, the company has decided to charge everyone.
Starting March 30, Polymarket officially extended its taker fee to virtually all trading categories—politics, finance, economics, culture, weather, and technology—leaving only geopolitics exempt. Previously, only crypto and sports contracts incurred fees. With this expansion, geopolitics stands as the sole remaining “free zone.”
The free lunch is over.
I. How Are Fees Structured?
Rather than adopting a traditional flat-fee model, Polymarket implemented a “dynamic probability-based pricing” mechanism: fees fluctuate based on a contract’s win probability. Fees peak when the probability hovers near 50%—i.e., when market uncertainty is highest—and taper toward zero as outcomes become increasingly certain (i.e., probabilities approach 0% or 100%).
Peak fees by category:
- Crypto contracts: 1.80% (up from 1.56%)
- Economics: 1.50%
- Culture/Weather: 1.25%
- Politics/Finance/Tech: 1.00%
- Sports: 0.75% (up from 0.44%)
- Geopolitics: 0% (the only free category)
Example: A $50 sports contract at exactly 50/50 odds sees its fee rise from $0.22 to $0.38. The increase is even steeper for crypto contracts, directly compressing real-world returns for high-frequency traders.
Simultaneously, Polymarket launched a maker rebate program: all collected fees are redistributed—not retained as platform revenue—as daily USDC payouts to liquidity providers (market makers). Rebate rates vary by category, reaching up to 50% for finance and 25% for sports. The logic is straightforward: charge takers (retail users), subsidize makers (market makers), and use fee revenue to power a liquidity flywheel.
II. Why Introduce Fees Now?
The answer lies in three numbers.
First, Polymarket’s trading volume over the past 30 days totaled approximately $9.55 billion. Applying an estimated blended effective fee rate under the new structure, the platform’s daily revenue would reach $800,000–$1 million—annualizing to roughly $300 million. For a company still lacking a stable revenue model, this income is existential.
Second, ICE—the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange—has just finalized a ~$2 billion investment commitment in Polymarket: $1 billion due in October 2025, followed by $600 million in cash plus up to $40 million for secondary share purchases in March 2026. When the deal was first signed, Polymarket’s valuation stood at ~$8 billion; reports now indicate the company is raising new capital at a valuation nearing $20 billion. With such massive funding, investors demand demonstrable revenue.
Third, competitor Kalshi is already charging fees—and generating $1.5 billion in annualized revenue, with a valuation soaring to $22 billion. If Polymarket delays monetization any longer, it risks becoming little more than a “feeder” for rivals: educating users for free, only to see them migrate to paid platforms offering deeper liquidity.
Another critical backdrop: Polymarket recently signed an exclusive multi-year partnership with Major League Baseball (MLB), reportedly valued at up to $300 million—following earlier deals with the NHL, MLS, and UFC. Securing professional sports leagues means commercial viability is no longer optional. You can’t shake hands with major leagues while telling investors, “We haven’t figured out how to make money yet.”
III. Congressional “Encirclement”
Polymarket chose a delicate moment to roll out its fee expansion.
Just one week prior, California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff and Utah Republican Senator John Curtis jointly introduced the “Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act,” which would prohibit CFTC-registered platforms from listing any sports-related prediction contracts.
Schiff stated bluntly: “Sports prediction contracts are sports betting—just repackaged under a different name.”
Curtis voiced a more specific concern: Utah’s state constitution bans all forms of gambling—but Polymarket and Kalshi’s prediction contracts operate unimpeded across all 50 U.S. states, bypassing every layer of state-level regulation.
This is not an isolated effort. That same week, Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley introduced the far more aggressive “STOP Corrupt Bets Act,” seeking to ban not only sports but also election-, government action-, and military operation–related prediction contracts. Arizona’s Attorney General has already filed criminal charges against Kalshi for operating an unlicensed gambling business. Meanwhile, Nevada courts have issued temporary injunctions against both Kalshi and Polymarket.
With multiple legislative initiatives advancing simultaneously, the prediction market industry faces its most intense regulatory assault since inception.
Yet markets remain relatively calm. On Polymarket itself, the contract titled “Will a bill banning sports prediction markets pass in 2026?” shows only a 9.5% chance of passage. Given the procedural hurdles—including committee hearings, votes in both chambers, and presidential signature—alongside Congress’s overcrowded agenda, enactment remains highly unlikely.
IV. The Lingering Shadow of Manipulation
Beyond fee controversies, Polymarket confronts a far thornier issue: persistent allegations of market manipulation and insider trading.
In January, a newly created account placed precise bets on Venezuela’s President Maduro being arrested—netting over $400,000 before the event occurred. In March, hours before coordinated U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps identified six newly minted wallets that profited $1.2 million via related contracts. Israeli authorities even arrested two individuals suspected of using classified military intelligence to place prediction-market bets.
Earlier, a market on “Will Ukraine agree to Trump’s mineral agreement?”—with over $7 million in trading volume—was abruptly settled as “Yes” despite zero official confirmation, triggering mass user protests. Some users took to social media shouting “Polyscam.”
User Folke Hermansen detailed multiple manipulation cases on X (formerly Twitter), centering on Polymarket’s reliance on UMA token voting for dispute resolution. His core allegation: two whales control over half the voting power, with one address alone holding 7.5 million of UMA’s 20 million tokens. Ordinary users possess no practical means to challenge outcomes.
In response, Polymarket introduced an “Enhanced Market Integrity Policy,” explicitly banning trading based on stolen confidential information, front-running using material nonpublic information, and participation by parties capable of influencing outcomes. The platform also announced partnerships with Palantir and TWG AI to build a dedicated market surveillance system.
Are these measures sufficient? Senator Schiff gave his answer in a CNBC interview: “Saying ‘this is our policy’ isn’t enough. What matters is whether you have real, enforceable mechanisms to implement it.”
V. The $20 Billion Bet
Connecting all these threads reveals Polymarket’s predicament as a classic startup equation:
ICE invested nearly $2 billion—not as venture capital, but to treat prediction market data as novel financial infrastructure. As ICE CEO Sprecher clarified on the earnings call, ICE’s return logic hinges on integrating prediction data into its proprietary workflows to boost data sales revenue. MLB granted exclusivity—not for speculation’s sake, but to leverage prediction markets for league user growth. Congress seeks regulatory authority and control over the gambling sector. Users want zero fees and fair, transparent resolution.
Among these demands, at least two sets are fundamentally incompatible.
The zero-fee era attracted users and traffic—but cannot sustain a company valued at $20 billion. Charging fees delivers revenue, yet risks pushing price-sensitive retail users to competitors: DraftKings has announced plans to launch its own prediction-market market-making division, while FanDuel has teamed up with CME Group to enter the space. Traditional betting giants are projected to invest hundreds of millions of dollars collectively in prediction markets by 2026. And if Congress passes the sports ban, Polymarket’s fastest-growing category will vanish overnight.
Polymarket executed a shrewd hedge: keeping geopolitics contracts free. This both reaffirms the platform’s self-stated mission as a “public prediction tool” and signals to Congress: “We’re not just a gambling platform—we deliver valuable collective intelligence.”
Yet the boundary between “valuable collective intelligence” and “gambling” has never been defined by technical architecture—it’s determined by political negotiation.
Polymarket’s own contract offers the final word: the probability of the ban passing remains below 10%. That said, trusting Polymarket’s own contracts to assess Polymarket’s fate is, in itself, a delightfully recursive question.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
