Polymarket has unveiled a new class of prediction markets tied to private companies, enabling bets on events around pre-IPO firms. The offering, developed in partnership with Nasdaq Private Market, leverages Nasdaq’s data feeds and market infrastructure to price contracts around fundraising rounds, valuation shifts and other corporate milestones in the private sector.

The initiative marks a strategic shift for Polymarket, broadening its product lineup beyond politics, macro events, and publicly traded companies. The goal is to bring more price discovery to private markets, where data is typically scarce and opaque, and to broaden participation among traders who track private-company dynamics.

The project is anchored by Nasdaq Private Market, which will provide the underlying data and the market infrastructure for the new contracts. Polymarket argues that the private-capital universe is swelling, with unicorns — privately held startups valued at $1 billion or more — attracting growing attention from investors and the broader market thirsty for forecast tools tied to private companies. There are nearly 1,600 unicorns worldwide with a combined valuation exceeding $5 trillion, the platform notes, even as access to these firms remains largely restricted to private investors.

The move comes as part of Polymarket’s broader push to reach financially oriented users and to extend prediction markets into private markets where pricing signals are less transparent than in public equities. The partnership with Nasdaq Private Market promises to deliver curated data feeds and a robust settlement framework that could give traders greater confidence when pricing private-company scenarios.

Key takeaways

• Polymarket launches a new category of private-company prediction markets in collaboration with Nasdaq Private Market, using Nasdaq’s data and trading infrastructure for the contracts.
• Markets will focus on pre-IPO events, such as fundraising rounds and valuation changes, alongside other corporate milestones for startups and late-stage private companies.
• Retail traders continue to drive the majority of activity in prediction markets, but institutional interest is rising as data quality and market infrastructure improve. A Bitget Wallet and Polymarket study from April pegged retail share at about 80% of volume.
• The private-market landscape is shaped by the unicorn phenomenon, with about 1,600 unicorns globally and a combined valuation above $5 trillion, underscoring demand for forecast tools in a relatively opaque segment.

Polymarket’s private-market expansion and what it changes for traders

Nasdaq Private Market’s involvement brings a structured data backbone and settlement capability that could help translate private-company events into tradable derivatives on Polymarket. The agreements aim to lower barriers to participate in forecasting around funding rounds, valuation shifts, and other milestones that typically occur behind closed doors or in limited private markets.

The approach reflects a broader push within the crypto and prediction-market ecosystem to broaden participation beyond traditional public markets. By connecting private-company events to a formalized data feed and trading framework, Polymarket seeks to create more transparent price signals for a segment that has long been difficult to price accurately due to limited disclosure and liquidity.

Polymarket has framed unicorns as a driver of this shift. The ecosystem’s acknowledged unicorn count and the scale of private valuations imply substantial interest in market-based forecasts tied to private companies. With roughly 1,600 unicorns worldwide and valuations that exceed $5 trillion collectively, the appetite for tools that forecast private-market outcomes appears robust, even as access to these firms remains restricted to a subset of investors.

Industry observers will be watching how data quality, settlement reliability, and regulatory clarity evolve as private-market prediction contracts gain traction. The arrangement with Nasdaq Private Market could offer a degree of credibility and standardization that helps attract more serious traders to private-company forecasting, while still preserving the accessible, on-demand nature of Polymarket’s platform.

Related reporting has highlighted ongoing institutional interest in the sector. Analysts have noted growing attention from large traders and asset managers seeking to hedge or speculate on private-market outcomes, a trend that aligns with broader market infrastructure improvements and a more favorable regulatory path for certain prediction-market activities. For instance, a milestone cited in industry coverage was Kalshi’s first institutional block trade, framed by Bernstein as a signal of deeper capital participation to come.

As anticipation builds around the private-market category, some observers caution that regulatory and mechanics questions remain. The debate around listing prediction-market ETFs, for example, underscores ongoing complexity in aligning these markets with mainstream financial-market structures. These dynamics suggest that while private-market predictions are gaining traction, the path forward will require careful navigation of risk, transparency, and investor protections.

Related coverage from Cointelegraph notes that institutional interest is rising in tandem with improvements in market infrastructure and regulatory clarity, an encouraging sign for platforms pursuing similar expansions. Linkages to related stories emphasize the broader context in which Polymarket’s move sits, including discussions around institutional participation and the evolving policy landscape that could shape future products.

Retail dominance, shifting capital dynamics, and what to watch next

Even as institutions begin to show more interest, retail traders still account for a substantial share of activity in prediction markets. The April Bitget Wallet and Polymarket analysis found that retail participants generated about 80% of the volume, underscoring the continued appeal of these markets to individual traders seeking alternatives to traditional equities or cryptocurrency investments.

Nevertheless, the conversation around private-market forecasting is gradually shifting toward institutional participation. As data transparency improves and trading infrastructure becomes more sophisticated, professional investors may increasingly incorporate private-market signals into hedging strategies and relative-value trades. Observers will want to monitor how much volume actually migrates from retail to more sophisticated, capital-intensive trades and whether any new products emerge to facilitate larger, privately negotiated positions.

The regulatory backdrop also matters. While there is momentum toward more permissive, structured innovation around prediction markets, questions about mechanics, risk controls, and potential ETF equivalents remain active. The sector has already faced scrutiny and delays in related product approvals, a dynamic that could influence how quickly private-market predictions gain mainstream traction.

Earlier reporting highlighted related institutional interest that could foreshadow broader adoption. For example, coverage of Jump Trading’s stake-building in Kalshi and Polymarket signals indicates that major trading firms are evaluating how to participate more deeply in prediction markets as infrastructure matures.

As Polymarket rolls out its private-market contracts, market participants should watch for how data feeds handle real-time corporate events, how settlement works in volatile private markets, and how the platform handles updates in private-company disclosures and valuations. The evolving regulatory and market infrastructure landscape will shape the pace and scale of adoption for these new contracts, potentially redefining how private equity markets are perceived and priced in the digital age.

For now, the launch signals a notable shift: as private-market data becomes more accessible through established exchanges and venues, forecast-based tools could increasingly become a fixture alongside traditional due diligence and valuation methods used by investors, advisors, and corporate insiders.

What happens next could hinge on two intertwined factors: the reliability of private-market data and the appetite of institutions to engage with these instruments at scale. If the Nasdaq Private Market-backed contracts prove robust in data quality and settlement, Polymarket’s private-market category may become a litmus test for how far price discovery can travel into private capital — and how quickly traders adapt to a world where private events are priced in near real time.

Readers should keep an eye on upcoming updates from Polymarket and Nasdaq Private Market, as well as ongoing regulatory developments that could either accelerate or temper the growth of private-market prediction contracts. The next few quarters will reveal how this blend of data-rich infrastructure and market-native forecasting translates into real-world liquidity and actionable intelligence for investors and builders alike.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has publicly challenged a key federal regulator over the expansion of crypto-related custody services under a banking charter. In a letter to OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould, Warren contends that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has approved at least nine national trust charters for crypto companies that appear to exceed the narrow activities permitted by law under the National Bank Act. The dispute spotlights how the line between crypto custody and traditional banking is being negotiated in U.S. regulation, with potential implications for consumer protection, bank safety and soundness, and the separation of banking from commerce.

Warren said she expects the OCC to disclose the full set of charter approvals or conditional approvals issued since December 2025, including entities such as Coinbase, Crypto.com’s parent company, Ripple, Stripe, BitGo, Circle, Fidelity Digital Assets, Protego Holdings, and Paxos, along with communications between OCC officials and U.S. President Donald Trump, his family, or White House staff. She frames these applicants as effectively crypto banks pursuing regulatory arbitrage—seeking to reap the benefits of a national trust charter while avoiding the safeguards that accompany conventional bank charters. The senator warned that the approach could undermine consumer protections, threaten banking system stability, and blur the boundary between banking and commerce.

Cointelegraph requested comment from the OCC regarding the letter and the broader use of national trust charters for crypto firms; the publication reported that the OCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The exchange underscores the sensitivity of the issue as regulators weigh how to apply traditional banking laws to a rapidly evolving crypto custody landscape.

Separately, Kraken’s parent company Payward filed an application with the OCC on May 8 for a national trust charter. If approved, the Payward National Trust Company would provide fiduciary custody and related services primarily for digital assets. A national trust charter permits custodial and fiduciary activities without engaging in deposit-taking or commercial lending, potentially placing such firms under a different regulatory posture than traditional banks and LLCs offering standard depository services.

The evolving custody framework matters not just for a handful of firms pursuing charters, but for the broader crypto ecosystem that interacts with traditional financial infrastructure. National trust charters are designed to enable certain non-depository fiduciary activities while permitting services akin to trust and custodial functions. However, critics argue that granting crypto-focused fiduciary authority outside a full banking license can reduce the visibility of risk controls and oversight that are central to conventional bank regulation. Warren’s letter questions whether these charters align with the National Bank Act and whether the OCC’s approach creates a pathway for crypto participants to offer bank-like services without the corresponding safeguards.

Key takeaways

• The OCC faces congressional scrutiny over its approval of national trust charters for crypto firms, with Senator Elizabeth Warren requesting the full list of approved or conditionally approved applications since December 2025.
• Naming specific entities—including Coinbase, Crypto.com’s parent company, Ripple, Stripe, BitGo, Circle, Fidelity Digital Assets, Protego Holdings, Paxos—and noting potential communications with Trump and White House officials, Warren frames these actions as efforts to expand crypto custody beyond traditional banking safeguards.
• A national trust charter enables fiduciary custody and related services without mandatory deposit-taking or commercial lending, raising questions about regulatory parity and oversight concentration for crypto custody providers.
• Kraken’s Payward applied for a national trust charter on May 8, signaling growing industry interest in a custody-focused charter that could shape how exchanges and other crypto firms interact with the U.S. banking system.
• The developments occur amid broader policy debates on crypto regulation in the United States, including discussions around the CLARITY Act and potential alignment or friction with international frameworks like the EU’s MiCA, as lawmakers consider how to ensure consumer protection and financial stability while fostering innovation.

National trust charters and the regulatory boundary

A national trust charter is designed to authorize a bank-like fiduciary role—allowing a chartered entity to provide custodial and other fiduciary services—without engaging in the full spectrum of depository or commercial lending activities typically associated with traditional banks. In practice, holders of such charters may operate under a lighter regime for certain activities, while remaining subject to specific fiduciary standards, anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, and periodic supervisory examinations. Critics, however, argue that extending trust-like powers to crypto firms risks creating regulatory gaps if supervisory expectations and capital or liquidity standards diverge from those applied to conventional banks.

The tension highlighted by Warren’s letter centers on whether OCC’s approvals were appropriately scoped and whether the underlying activities of the named entities truly fit within the narrow confines of permissible banking-related fiduciary services. By demanding the full record of approvals and communications, Warren signals concern about potential regulatory arbitrage—where firms might tailor activities to fit a charter category that offers favorable oversight or fewer constraints than a traditional bank charter would entail. The inquiry also raises questions about whether these charters would adequately address issues such as consumer protections, prudential risk management, and the treatment of stablecoins and other crypto assets under a federated U.S. banking framework.

The OCC’s stance on crypto-related charters is part of a broader U.S. regulatory mosaic that includes federal and state authorities, as well as policy debates on how best to supervise digital assets that interact with banking rails. The landscape is further complicated by ongoing legislative proposals and executive actions that aim to clarify which activities qualify for a banking or trust charter and how AML/KYC regimes should be tailored to crypto custodians. The outcome of these debates will influence how crypto firms structure their custody offerings and whether they seek full depository charters, specialized trust charters, or other regulatory designations.

Policy context and enforcement dynamics

The current episode sits at the intersection of hotly debated policy questions about how to regulate crypto custody and whether existing banking laws adequately address the unique risk profiles of digital assets. Senator Warren has been a persistent critic of what she views as regulatory policy that could entangle public institutions with private crypto interests or create incentives for polices with perceived conflicts of interest. In parallel, she has advocated for provisions in the crypto market structure framework, including elements of the CLARITY Act, to inject greater clarity and safeguards into the regulatory process. Her comments also reflect broader concerns about the potential influence of political relationships on regulatory outcomes, an issue she has highlighted in relation to firms linked to former President Trump and the crypto industry.

From a regulatory oversight perspective, the situation underscores the challenge of applying a consistent framework to crypto custody providers that seek to operate as banks or trust entities without the typical deposit-taking license. Regulators are weighing how to ensure robust AML/KYC controls, clear fiduciary responsibilities, and resilience against operational and cyber risks, while not stifling innovation or driving activity offshore. The discourse also intersects with international policy trends, including the European Union’s MiCA framework, which aims to harmonize crypto regulation across member states and establish distinct regimes for issuers, service providers, and stablecoin arrangements. How U.S. regulators position charters for crypto custodians in relation to MiCA-style frameworks and cross-border supervision will have implications for global banking relationships and correspondent banking access for crypto firms.

The governance and enforcement dimension is also evolving as individual institutions pursue charter applications in a climate of heightened scrutiny. Kraken’s bid illustrates that incumbent and new-entrant firms alike view a national trust charter as a pathway to formalize custody services under U.S. supervisory reach. Yet supervisors will need to articulate how such charters align with supervisory expectations, risk controls, and capital adequacy standards appropriate for fiduciary activities tied to digital assets. The interplay of these factors will likely shape future licensing decisions, capital planning, and AML/KYC program design across the crypto custody ecosystem.

Impact on industry, compliance, and regulatory strategy

For crypto platforms, the potential availability of national trust charters could alter the calculus of risk management, product design, and customer onboarding. Exchanges and custodians may pursue custody-focused offerings that emphasize fiduciary services, while limiting exposure to deposit-taking activities. This could influence the way stablecoins and other crypto assets are integrated with traditional payment rails, banking partners, and settlement mechanisms. However, as Warren’s inquiry suggests, there remains a critical need for clear, publicly available disclosures that delineate the scope of each charter approval, the activities authorized, and the corresponding compliance expectations.

From a compliance perspective, the prospect of a growing cohort of crypto firms operating under national trust charters raises questions about consistency of supervision across institutions, the applicability of AML/KYC standards, and the monitoring of fiduciary risk in asset custody. Regulators may need to establish or reinforce supervisory benchmarks, including governance requirements, stress testing for custody operations, cyber risk controls, and incident reporting protocols. The outcome will influence how banks and non-bank financial institutions interact within the U.S. financial system, including access to correspondent banking relationships and participation in integrated custody ecosystems for institutional clients.

For policymakers and industry watchers, the developments emphasize the importance of a coherent policy framework that can adapt to the evolving use cases of digital assets while maintaining robust consumer protections and market integrity. The discussion around national trust charters intersects with ongoing debates on licensing criteria, cross-border regulatory alignment, and the extent to which crypto firms should bear the same or equivalent regulatory burdens as traditional financial institutions. Observers will be watching how the OCC responds to Warren’s requests, what additional disclosures or safeguards emerge, and whether any charter approvals will be conditioned or restructured to reduce potential risks to the financial system.

Closing perspective

As regulators confront the rapid expansion of crypto custody activities, the balance between fostering innovation and maintaining rigorous oversight remains delicate. The current episode illustrates how congressional scrutiny, agency policy, and industry initiatives are converging around the question of what constitutes appropriate banking and fiduciary authority for digital asset firms. The next steps—including OCC responses to requests for full charter records, the fate of Kraken’s charter application, and any clarifying legislative or regulatory actions—will shape the regulatory landscape for crypto custody and its integration with traditional financial infrastructure.

According to Cointelegraph, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has greenlit a policy pathway to accelerate automated financial infrastructure through artificial intelligence and blockchain technology. The policy proposal, issued by the LDP Policy Research Council as part of the “Next Generation AI and Onchain Finance Initiative,” envisions using blockchain to settle payments across retail and wholesale channels, while enabling AI to autonomously execute economic activities. It also calls for clarifying the legality of yen-pegged stablecoins as part of a broader regulatory framework.

In a translated statement accompanying the publication, the council asserted that expanding blockchain adoption will be pivotal to constructing the infrastructure required to keep Japan at the forefront of AI-enabled finance. The document underscored the potential to deepen international cooperation, particularly with Asian economies that maintain strong economic ties with Japan, should Japan lead in creating a secure and trusted on-chain payments infrastructure.

“In Japan, the expanded adoption of blockchain technology will play a crucial role in establishing the necessary infrastructure to ensure that the nation remains ‘chosen by AI’,” the council stated, adding: “If we can take the lead among nations in establishing a secure and trusted payment infrastructure for on-chain transactions, we can anticipate deepening cooperation in various forms — such as by providing expertise and services — particularly with Asian countries that share strong economic ties with Japan.”

On the public record, LDP member Seiji Kihara reflected on the plan via X, describing the release as laying out the “big picture” of the initiative. He emphasized that the critical work now lies in the follow-up steps needed to translate the vision into concrete policy and implementation efforts.

Key takeaways

• The LDP Policy Research Council approved a forward-looking framework to integrate AI and on-chain finance, outlining use cases for autonomous AI-driven economic activity and on-chain payment settlements in Japan’s retail and wholesale sectors.
• The initiative places a spotlight on clarifying the legal status of yen-pegged stablecoins within Japan’s financial infrastructure, signaling a push to define digital currency instruments within existing regulatory boundaries.
• The plan positions Japan to seek regional leadership in secure, trusted on-chain payments, with potential collaboration and service provision to Asian partners that are economically entwined with Japan.
• Regulatory backdrop continues to evolve: Japan’s government earlier amended a law to classify crypto assets as financial instruments, following a period of consideration around guidelines that could enable crypto-backed exchange-traded funds.
• Industry dynamics in the domestic crypto market may be shifting toward consolidation, as evidenced by SBI Holdings’ indication of interest in acquiring a stake in Bitbank, a move with implications for market structure and regulatory oversight.

Policy framework for AI-enabled on-chain finance

The initiative represents a deliberate attempt to map a national blueprint for AI-enabled, blockchain-based financial infrastructure. By envisioning a system in which blockchain settlement mechanisms underwrite retail and wholesale transactions, and AI autonomously executes economic activities, the LDP aims to reduce friction in payments and broaden the scope of programmable finance. The emphasis on on-chain settlement is notable for potential implications across settlement latency, interoperability, and operator liability—areas that typically attract scrutiny from regulators and compliance teams as digital assets gain traction in mainstream finance.

The document also contemplates a clarified legal environment for yen-linked stablecoins. While not a full endorsement of any particular instrument, the emphasis on certainty around legal status is aimed at addressing risk vectors that concern banks, payment providers, and exchanges seeking to participate in a regulated ecosystem. In this context, the plan aligns with broader policy conversations about how digital currencies interface with traditional monetary frameworks and payment rails.

The leadership’s framing of the initiative as a collaborative path to “be chosen by AI” underscores Japan’s intention to position itself as a testing ground for secure, trusted on-chain operations. The aspirational tone reflects a governance approach that seeks to balance innovation with regulatory clarity—an essential consideration for financial institutions, technology providers, and market participants seeking clarity on permissible activities, licensing requirements, and cross-border compliance expectations.

As part of the broader regulatory landscape, observers may note that Japan has been methodically adjusting its stance on digital assets. In April, the government amended a law to classify crypto assets as financial instruments, following earlier signals about potential guideline changes that could enable crypto-linked exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the near term. While the specific contours of any future ETFs remain under consideration, the trend signals a move toward formal recognition of digital asset instruments within Japan’s financial regulatory framework. For exchanges and asset managers, these developments—together with the LDP plan—could influence licensing trajectories, product approvals, and the scope of permissible client disclosures and risk controls.

Industry consolidation and market structure implications

Concurrent with the policy discourse, corporate activity within Japan’s crypto sector is shifting. On May 1, SBI Holdings disclosed that it was weighing a stake acquisition in Bitbank, one of the country’s digital-asset platforms. If negotiations advance and receive the necessary approvals, the move would constitute a notable consolidation: a major financial services player seeking to acquire or integrate a digital asset exchange. Market participants, incumbents, and regulators alike will be watching how such moves interact with the evolving regulatory regime—particularly regarding licensing, AML/KYC regimes, governance standards, and consumer protections for exchange users.

The consolidation narrative, set against a backdrop of regulatory clarity and a push for more sophisticated financial infrastructure, could influence competitive dynamics, capital allocation, and partner ecosystems for banks, payment processors, and other fintechs operating in Japan. It also raises questions for cross-border firms and foreign participants seeking to operate in Japan’s crypto market, underscoring the importance of aligned compliance programs, transparent governance practices, and robust risk management frameworks to navigate any shifts in market concentration.

Closing perspective

Japan’s LDP policy initiative marks a deliberate step toward integrating AI and blockchain into a formal financial infrastructure plan, with explicit attention to regulatory clarity around stablecoins and on-chain settlement. As the government advances this agenda, market participants should monitor the regulatory dialogue, licensing developments, and potential cross-border cooperation that could reshape the competitive landscape for digital assets and financial technology in Japan and the broader Asia-Pacific region.