Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 12, 2026 · 7:54 AM ET

A reported $8.56 billion in combined trading volume at Kalshi and Polymarket over two days remains unverified, according to coincu.com. As of Oct 12, 2026, the report provides neither a venue-by-venue breakdown nor a confirmed calculation method, limiting what the total can establish about activity on either platform.

What the total leaves unresolved

The missing details extend beyond each venue’s contribution. There is no breakdown by contract category, open interest or settlement volume, according to coincu.com. Without those measures, the available evidence cannot distinguish widespread participation from trading concentrated in a small number of events, including election or Federal Reserve outcomes.

Turnover also measures something different from revenue or outstanding economic exposure. In the source’s example, a binary contract changing hands at $0.50 adds $0.50 to trading volume regardless of its eventual payout. Even if verified, the $8.56 billion total would not by itself demonstrate deep order books or reliable pricing.

Coincu.com cites earlier reporting questioning whether Kalshi’s published transaction statistics reflect genuine two-sided liquidity. It also points to Ethereum perpetual trading concentrated at a single trade size and a recent period when a 15-minute gold market exceeded Ethereum in contract count. Those observations warrant scrutiny of the aggregate figure, but do not establish how this particular two-day total was generated.

Different regulatory footing

According to coincu.com, Kalshi holds a designated contract market license, while Polymarket operates offshore without CFTC registration. The outlet also reports that the CFTC has opened insider trading investigations into Polymarket. Those differences affect institutional access and complicate interpreting combined turnover as evidence of organic demand.

Kalshi has separately sought CFTC approval for U.S. stock perpetual contracts, the outlet reports. For the volume claim, however, the immediate verification points are platform disclosures or a primary regulatory filing. Coincu.com says Kalshi submits transaction data to the CFTC, while Polymarket has no equivalent mandatory disclosure requirement under its offshore structure. Whether the CFTC requires standardized volume reporting also remains an unresolved policy question.

What it means for prediction markets

• Confirmation is still pending: The $8.56 billion figure should remain labeled unverified until contemporaneous platform data or a primary regulatory filing supports it.
• Venue comparisons are unsupported: With no split or confirmed methodology, the report cannot establish which platform contributed more activity.
• Turnover is not market depth: Order-book liquidity, participation and open interest would help assess whether high activity supports dependable probability signals.
• Reporting standards matter: Any CFTC guidance on consistent volume measurement could change how readers compare prediction-market activity across platforms and periods.

A reported $8.56 billion in combined Kalshi and Polymarket trading over two days is circulating in financial media, but the evidence needed to assess that total is missing. According to Coincu, neither a venue-level breakdown nor a confirmed turnover methodology accompanies the figure, which remains unverified.

What the total leaves unresolved

The report provides no breakdown by contract category, open interest or settlement volume. That leaves readers unable to determine how much activity occurred on each platform—or whether participation spanned many markets rather than clustering around a few events, such as elections or Federal Reserve decisions.

Turnover also measures something different from revenue, outstanding exposure or eventual payouts. Coincu illustrates this with a binary contract traded at $0.50: the transaction adds $0.50 to reported volume regardless of how the contract ultimately settles. A large aggregate therefore does not, by itself, establish deep liquidity or broad participation.

Coincu cites earlier reporting questioning the relationship between Kalshi’s published transaction statistics and executable, two-sided order-book liquidity. It also points to Ethereum perpetual trading concentrated at a single trade size and a recent period in which a 15-minute gold market exceeded Ethereum in contract count. Those observations warrant scrutiny of the aggregate, but do not establish how the reported $8.56 billion was generated.

Regulatory differences complicate comparisons

According to Coincu, Kalshi holds a CFTC designated contract market license, while Polymarket operates offshore without CFTC registration. The outlet also reports CFTC insider trading investigations involving Polymarket and says Kalshi has sought approval for U.S. stock perpetual contracts. These distinctions matter for institutional access, independently of the reported turnover.

Confirmation would require contemporaneous platform disclosures or primary regulatory records supporting the total. Coincu notes that Kalshi submits transaction data to the CFTC, while Polymarket has no equivalent mandatory disclosure under its offshore structure. Standardized reporting requirements would also help establish whether volume figures can be compared consistently between venues and across periods.

What it means for prediction markets

• Treat the $8.56 billion as an unconfirmed claim. Without supporting disclosures, it cannot reliably establish either platform’s share of activity.
• Separate turnover from market quality. Order-book depth and outstanding exposure are more informative than aggregate trading alone when assessing whether prices reflect durable participation.
• Watch for disaggregated evidence. Venue totals, contract-level activity and measurement definitions would help distinguish broad demand from concentrated trading.
• Reporting policy matters. Any CFTC guidance on standardized volume methodology could change how future prediction-market milestones are evaluated.

Revenue versus trading records

IG Group CEO Breon Corcoran is challenging the usefulness of the volume records publicized by Kalshi and Polymarket as IG prepares to buy US prediction markets operator Underdog for up to $1.3 billion. Speaking to analysts at a seminar on Thursday, he argued that net gaming revenue provides a better basis for assessing the sector than notional trading totals, according to Finance Magnates.

Kalshi surpassed $100 billion in lifetime notional volume in June, with World Cup markets contributing to activity. Both Kalshi and Polymarket are privately held; Kalshi raised $1 billion in May at a $22 billion valuation. Corcoran illustrated his concern with a 100-leg parlay: a customer’s $1 stake could represent thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars in notional value. He distinguished that measure from handle—the amount customers stake—and put net gaming revenue ahead of both.

Corcoran said IG was currently the only publicly traded company discussing prediction markets revenue, while acknowledging earlier disclosures from Robinhood. Robinhood’s event-contract revenue reached $156 million in the second quarter, more than ten times its level a year earlier.

Underdog’s growth and the acquisition price

Underdog co-founder and CEO Jeremy Levine told the seminar that third-quarter net revenue rose 118% year over year to $105 million, while handle per customer increased 165%. World Cup matches and an unusually weak margin comparison a year earlier supported that growth, he said. Underdog reported $441 million in net revenue for 2025. Under the agreement reached in July, IG will pay $1.1 billion upfront, with up to $200 million more dependent on 2026 revenue. IG CFO Clifford Abrahams put the initial payment at 2.4 times Underdog’s net revenue for the 12 months to June.

Asked by Deutsche Bank analyst David McCann whether newer, lower-margin prediction products could pressure quarterly revenue as the product mix changes, Levine said rapid handle growth need not coincide with improving margins. He indicated that tripling handle would be attractive even if the margin were halved.

Exchange ownership and IG’s changing business

Underdog opened its exchange in July and holds the three federal registrations required to broker, list and clear contracts. Other operators are also building exchange capabilities: DraftKings submitted its first event-contract templates for DKeX in May, while Robinhood and Susquehanna acquired MIAXdx in January and renamed it Rothera, giving Robinhood its own licensed exchange and clearinghouse, according to Finance Magnates.

Abrahams said prediction markets and daily fantasy sports would account for 27% of the combined group’s revenue. The US share would reach 41%, compared with 19% currently. Corcoran described Underdog’s typical customers as men aged 20 to 40 who also trade other asset classes.

The seminar followed by a week IG’s disclosure that third-quarter revenue had declined about 14% year over year. Retention in its over-the-counter business fell to around 70%, against an average of about 80% since mid-2025. IG is scheduled to outline its strategy for the existing business in London on October 22.

What it means for prediction markets

• Volume and revenue answer different questions. Corcoran’s parlay example highlights why a notional-volume milestone does not, by itself, establish customer spending or an operator’s economic performance.
• Growth comparisons need context. Underdog’s 118% revenue increase benefited partly from World Cup activity and the prior year’s weak margins; its 165% rise in handle per customer is a separate measure.
• Product mix matters. Levine’s comments underscore that rising handle can accompany lower margins, complicating comparisons based solely on trading activity.
• IG’s acquisition creates a public-company reporting benchmark. With prediction markets and daily fantasy sports expected to contribute 27% of combined revenue, disclosures on revenue, handle and margins will be important for evaluating the business.