Intercontinental Exchange has signaled it may put more money into Polymarket’s next funding round after building a $1.64 billion stake in the prediction market platform.

Bloomberg reported Thursday that ICE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Sprecher said the New York Stock Exchange parent would consider participating if its involvement could help Polymarket complete the round.

“We’ll look at it, if it would help the round in order to have our imprimatur on it, we are always interested,” Sprecher told Bloomberg Television.

ICE may join Polymarket’s new funding round

Polymarket is seeking fresh capital at a valuation above $20 billion, according to Bloomberg, more than twice the valuation attached to the company in October. The report said the platform has continued to draw investor interest as prediction markets expand across sports, politics, geopolitics and other event based contracts.

ICE has already participated in two Polymarket funding rounds, with Bloomberg putting the exchange operator’s stake at $1.64 billion by March. Sprecher said the relationship was designed partly to allow the companies to exchange information and expertise, instead of turning ICE into a regular investor in technology startups.

As crypto.news reported in March, ICE invested another $600 million in Polymarket as part of a previously announced commitment of up to $2 billion. ICE said at the time that the investment was not expected to have a material effect on its financial results or capital return plans.

“The reality is we’re not a venture firm,” Sprecher said Thursday, describing the Polymarket investment as a relationship built around the “transfer of information and expertise.”

The distinction is important to ICE’s approach, according to Sprecher, because the company operates some of the world’s largest financial exchanges and clearing businesses and does not plan to build a portfolio of venture investments simply because technology companies are attracting capital.

Polymarket, meanwhile, has continued adding infrastructure around its prediction market business. A March report on Polymarket’s Brahma acquisition detailed its purchase of the DeFi infrastructure startup after earlier acquisitions of QCEX and Dome. The report said the transactions added U.S. regulatory access, developer infrastructure and onchain execution capabilities to Polymarket’s operations.

Prediction markets are drawing more institutional capital

Prediction markets have attracted more attention since the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Bloomberg reported, as traders increasingly use yes or no contracts to speculate on outcomes ranging from elections and sporting events to geopolitical developments.

Investor money has followed that activity. Polymarket is now seeking funding at a valuation above $20 billion, while rival Kalshi has also completed major fundraising rounds as both companies compete for traders and distribution partnerships.

Robinhood Markets has become another major participant in the sector. During the same Bloomberg Television coverage, Chief Executive Officer Vlad Tenev said prediction markets should remain under federal supervision through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not individual state regulators.

The question has become increasingly important as several states attempt to apply their own rules to sports and election linked contracts. According to Bloomberg, some state authorities contend that certain contracts should fall under state gambling or gaming laws, while prediction market companies have argued that federally regulated event contracts belong under the CFTC.

A July report on North Carolina’s new law showed one state taking the federal route. Governor Josh Stein signed legislation recognizing CFTC authority over prediction markets and allowing federally registered platforms, including Kalshi and Polymarket, to operate in the state from 2027. The law also imposed a 6% state tax on trading fee revenue generated by the platforms.

State challenges keep the CFTC fight active

Other states have continued to challenge prediction market operators, leaving courts to consider how federal derivatives law interacts with state gambling powers.

Tenev told Bloomberg that he expects event contracts to remain a viable business even if the jurisdictional fight eventually reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and the court gives states more control over some products.

“I don’t think it’s going to be, ‘prediction markets are gone,’” Tenev said. He added that a legal ruling could establish a boundary that would require companies such as Robinhood to adapt their offerings.

The dispute has already produced different regulatory approaches across the country. North Carolina has explicitly recognized federal oversight, while lawsuits and enforcement actions elsewhere have challenged sports related contracts offered through federally regulated platforms.

Alongside prediction markets, the CFTC has also started allowing new forms of crypto derivatives to enter regulated U.S. venues.

In May, Kalshi received approval to launch the first regulated Bitcoin perps in the United States. The same report said Coinbase received a no action letter allowing certain crypto perpetual futures products to use Bitcoin, Ether and stablecoins as collateral.

The approvals have created another point of comparison between newer crypto trading products and the traditional futures contracts offered by established derivatives exchanges.

ICE remains cautious on perpetual futures

Perpetual futures became another focus of Sprecher’s interview after President Donald Trump said earlier this week that U.S. regulators were working on a route to bring Hyperliquid into the country in a fully compliant form.

Hyperliquid is best known for perpetual futures, leveraged derivatives that allow traders to take positions on crypto and other asset prices without an expiration date. Bloomberg reported that the product category has moved outside its long standing crypto use case, particularly during the Iran war.

During periods when traditional oil futures venues operated by CME Group and ICE were closed, Bloomberg said perpetual contracts became one of the available ways for investors to trade oil exposure.

Sprecher said ICE is not currently pursuing the products because the company’s core derivatives customers primarily use futures for hedging. Traditional futures contracts with different expiration dates also produce a forward pricing curve that companies can use to manage future costs and prices, while perpetual contracts do not create the same structure.

“Our client base is really a hedging client base, and there’s no forward pricing curve that is created by a perpetual future,” Sprecher told Bloomberg.

For ICE, Sprecher said the product does not fit the customers the exchange primarily serves, describing perpetual futures as “really a speculative” product that “doesn’t cater to our distribution or client base.”

US CFTC Chair Michael Selig used remarks at the agency’s inaugural Innovation Advisory Committee meeting to make clear that crypto regulation is not “waiting on Washington” to catch up. While lawmakers continue to debate the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, Selig said the commission would still pursue rulemaking and regulatory steps it believes are available under existing authority.

In prepared remarks on Thursday, Selig indicated that CFTC staff had already been directed to permit both registered and non-registered entities to provide “crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis,” and to explore protections for developers. He framed this approach as giving CLARITY “breathing room” for a vote, but accelerating implementation if Congress fails to send what he described as a fair, bipartisan bill to the White House.

Key takeaways

• CFTC Chair Michael Selig said the agency will move forward on crypto rules even if the CLARITY Act is not enacted.
• Selig pointed to internal direction allowing leveraged or margined crypto trading by both registered and non-registered entities.
• The CFTC chair linked any legislative delay to a potential “swift” push for new industry rules should Congress not produce enough consensus.
• The CLARITY Act’s timeline is tied to a planned Senate cloture vote expected when the chamber returns in September.
• Selig also discussed the CFTC’s continuing push on prediction markets, including its view of “exclusive jurisdiction” tied to event contracts.

Why Selig is signaling “move now, not later”

Selig’s message was aimed at the reality of congressional gridlock. He said the CFTC would effectively pause “breathing room” for CLARITY to reach the necessary decision process, but only for so long. If lawmakers—including Democrats and Republicans—do not converge on a bipartisan compromise and deliver a version Selig described as “fair” to President Donald Trump, the chair said he would instruct CFTC staff to propose rules for the industry quickly.

The central point is that the CFTC believes it can regulate aspects of the crypto market structure through existing mechanisms, even if broader statutory clarity remains unsettled. For market participants, that matters because it shifts expectations away from a single legislative moment and toward continuing, agency-driven regulatory development.

What happens to CLARITY if Congress stalls

According to the account of the legislative path described alongside Selig’s remarks, the market structure bill is essentially on hold until the US Senate returns to session in September. At that time, Majority Leader John Thune is expected to bring the legislation for a cloture vote.

For CLARITY to move forward in the Senate and return to the House, it would need 60 votes. If it clears that threshold, the bill would proceed back to the House for approval before reaching Trump’s desk, where it could be signed or vetoed.

That voting math is one reason Selig’s warning carries weight. If CLARITY does not clear the Senate bar, the CFTC’s willingness to use regulatory tools available now could effectively reduce the practical impact of the delayed statute—at least in the areas where the commission believes it has room to act.

CLARITY’s prospects are further complicated by ongoing political disagreements. The article notes that many Democrats have sought stronger ethics provisions in the market structure bill, specifically to address the Trump family’s crypto investments—reported as having netted the president $1.4 billion in 2025. Trump, meanwhile, said Wednesday that “a lot of Democrats” approved of CLARITY, but it remained unclear whether support would be sufficient for the 60-vote requirement in the Senate.

Consistency with the SEC’s broader approach

Selig’s comments also echoed a wider regulatory push happening in parallel at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Earlier in the week, the SEC released proposed rules for digital asset regulation. The SEC said the proposals could give crypto firms a safe harbor approach from tokens being treated as “investment contracts,” alongside exemptions for certain issuers.

For investors and industry compliance teams, simultaneous signals from both agencies can matter as much as the content itself. Even when rules differ—CFTC frameworks often focus on futures, derivatives, and commodity-related market conduct, while SEC frameworks address securities-law questions—the overall direction can influence how companies structure products, marketing language, and legal risk assessments.

In that sense, Selig’s remarks read as part of a broader “regulate regardless” posture, where agencies seek to provide certainty and operational pathways rather than waiting for a single piece of legislation to settle all questions at once.

Regulatory priorities beyond market structure: leverage, developers, and prediction markets

Selig’s remarks also highlighted internal CFTC priorities reaching beyond the CLARITY debate. He said he had directed staff to allow leveraged or margined crypto asset trading by both registered and non-registered entities and to explore developer protections.

Separately, Thursday’s Innovation Advisory Committee agenda included artificial intelligence and prediction markets. The chair reiterated the CFTC’s position that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, based on its view that event contracts on the platforms it is considering qualify as “swaps.”

According to the account, Selig has directed the commission to file lawsuits against state-level authorities that challenge the CFTC’s jurisdictional view, including cases involving companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

These prediction market efforts underscore a theme in Selig’s leadership: the CFTC is not treating the legislative agenda as the only route to policy outcomes. Instead, it appears willing to pursue enforcement and litigation strategies to establish boundaries of its authority even while Congress works through a broader market structure bill.

What to watch next

The immediate question is whether the Senate can reach the 60-vote threshold for CLARITY when it returns in September. In the meantime, market participants should track how the CFTC operationalizes Selig’s direction—especially around leveraged or margined trading allowances—and whether prediction market litigation continues to expand as the agency tests its “exclusive jurisdiction” position.

Optimism’s on-chain governance has approved a plan to redirect 546.9 million OP tokens, previously earmarked for user airdrops, into a new Strategic Ecosystem Fund designed to back ecosystem growth and institutional adoption.

According to CoinGecko data, OP is currently valued at roughly $214 million in market capitalization with a circulating supply of about 2.29 billion tokens (CoinGecko). At today’s price levels mentioned in the coverage, the repurposed allocation is roughly $50 million—about a quarter of the token’s market cap.

Key takeaways

• Optimism governance voted to move 546.9M OP from planned user airdrops into a new Strategic Ecosystem Fund.
• The fund is intended to support partnerships with chains, protocols, and institutions, alongside incentives to boost activity and liquidity on OP Mainnet.
• Some delegates pushed back, arguing the tokens were previously promised to users and questioning how returns would be measured.
• Optimism says it does not plan additional airdrops after distributing 269.1M OP across five rounds, framing this as a shift from user acquisition to institutional focus.

A shift from user distribution to ecosystem and enterprise growth

The approved proposal creates a fund meant to accelerate broader adoption rather than focusing on further token distribution. In the plan, the Strategic Ecosystem Fund will back initiatives including partnerships with other networks and protocols, as well as incentives aimed at increasing activity and liquidity on OP Mainnet.

It also explicitly points to growth for OP Enterprise, a component of Optimism’s wider push to serve institutional and enterprise users. Supporters of the change argued that the redeployment better positions Optimism to compete for enterprise-focused deals and drive measurable ecosystem expansion.

Governance debate highlights trust and accountability questions

Not all delegates were convinced. The proposal faced pushback from some participants who argued that the tokens were already committed to user airdrops. They also raised concerns about how Optimism would evaluate the fund’s outcomes, including what “success” would look like for the foundation and how investments would be assessed.

Optimism’s proponents, by contrast, framed the allocation as a pragmatic reallocation toward later-stage priorities. They argued that the ecosystem’s next growth phase requires resources targeted at institutional adoption and increased network utilization—goals they believe align more closely with a fund built for partnerships and liquidity incentives.

Optimism: airdrops are largely done, institutional push is next

Optimism stated that it has no additional airdrops planned following the distribution of 269.1 million OP across five rounds. The project’s rationale is that airdrops were most appropriate for an earlier phase focused on broad user acquisition, whereas Optimism says it has now moved toward a different growth strategy centered on institutional adoption.

The network emphasized that this change reflects an evolution in its priorities rather than a reversal. The governance decision, however, makes the measurement question central: if a fund is moved away from token distribution, stakeholders will likely want clearer metrics around ecosystem impact, partnership quality, and any resulting activity or revenue tied back to the spending.

OP price reacts as token remains far below its peak

While the governance vote addresses long-term allocation, OP’s market behavior shows how quickly investor attention can move to any major token-related decision. The coverage notes that OP traded around $0.09 on Thursday, up about 11% over the prior 24 hours amid a broader market rally. Even after the rebound, the token remains more than 93% below its all-time high.

At the referenced price, the repurposed 546.9M token allocation would be worth around $50 million, consistent with roughly one-quarter of OP’s market capitalization at the time mentioned. That comparison underscores why the vote is relevant to market participants: shifting a large token reserve allocation can influence expectations about future supply dynamics, ecosystem spending priorities, and how investors think about the project’s runway.

Where the OP Stack fits into the next growth phase

Optimism is the Ethereum scaling project behind OP Mainnet and the OP Stack, the modular blockchain framework that supports other networks. Among projects cited in the coverage are Base, Unichain, Kraken’s Ink, and Sony’s Soneium. Optimism also states that more than 30 OP Stack chains currently contribute revenue to Optimism.

This matters for the governance decision because the new fund is designed to complement an ecosystem model that depends on both network activity and partnerships. If OP Stack chains continue to expand, the foundation’s ability to attract additional enterprises and liquidity could become a more direct driver of usage across OP Mainnet and related tooling.

Investors and builders will likely watch for how Optimism operationalizes the Strategic Ecosystem Fund—particularly whether it publishes clear allocation criteria and measurable targets for partnerships, liquidity incentives, and OP Enterprise outcomes. The governance vote moves the budget needle now, but the next phase will depend on follow-through and transparency about results.

SimpleSwap report finds Bitcoin sell-offs are drawing weaker stablecoin inflows as market fear loses its impact

Bitcoin fell 17.5% in February, and money ran for cover. It fell 15.7% in June, and almost nothing moved. SimpleSwap tracked 26 weeks of swap flows, then two rival platforms went and checked their own books.

Over 36 hours on 4 and 5 February, Bitcoin fell 17.5%. Stablecoin inflows on SimpleSwap ran 600% above their weekly average in a single day.

Over 70 hours from 1 to 4 June, Bitcoin fell 15.7%. The same flows came in 9% below average.

Two drawdowns, four months apart, separated by less than two percentage points of depth. Their responses differ by more than six hundred.

June was not the calmest month

The tempting explanation is that traders had less to fear by summer. The sentiment data says the opposite. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index printed 5 during the February episode, the lowest reading in its history, and in June it bottomed in the low teens at almost identical depth. By Alternative.me’s count, the index spent roughly two of every three days of the half in Extreme Fear.

The market gave nobody a reason to relax. Spot volume on the top centralized exchanges fell from about $9.5 trillion in the second half of 2025 to roughly $4.65 trillion, according to CoinGecko, while total capitalization ended the half near $2.1 trillion. June was a muted response in a frightened market—stranger, in some ways, than a calm one.

That gap is what the H1 2026 Swap Report, published this week by SimpleSwap, examines. Using swaps, the report shows a part of the market that order books do not capture: what people actually chose to do next, at the moment they did it.

The relationship did not weaken; it inverted

“The first drawdown of a cycle is news, and people act on news,” said Stefan Lauer, Head of Infrastructure at SimpleSwap. “The third one of comparable size is weather, and nobody rearranges a portfolio because it is raining again.”

Then two competitors checked their own books

SwapSpace recorded inflows 61% above baseline in the February episode, then fell to 9.3% below baseline by June, with its weekly correlation moving from −0.33 to +0.04. That is the same flip, but with a smaller amplitude.

Swapzone confirms February, when stablecoin swaps ran more than 50% above a normal week, and complicates June, when a few individual stablecoins pulled back while total stablecoin volume remained more than 10% above baseline.

“Both platforms confirm the surge, and only one confirms the fade, which is the honest state of the evidence,” said Rick Cramer, Head of Analytics at SimpleSwap. “Any analyst who takes the finding seriously will go looking for exactly that boundary, so leaving it out would have been the fastest way to lose them.”

One weekly detail sharpens all of it. Across 26 weeks, exactly two produced a net outflow from stablecoins. One was the first week of January. The other was the first week of June, the week containing the deepest Bitcoin drawdown of the half. In the worst week of the period, no money arrived in the safe asset.

What to do with a broken indicator

Five more findings, and where they lead

Stablecoin supply held near $310 billion through the half while Visa’s Allium-powered dashboard logged $1.79 trillion of adjusted transfer volume in June, an all-time high. The platform’s flow data lands on the receiving end of that shift.

The platform made 268 assets routable — roughly ten a week — and the median one then waited about seven weeks before its first meaningful use. The fastest moved in only a small fraction of that time, and the gap between them is what the section really examines.

Cross-chain activity accounted for 91.8% of swaps and remained remarkably stable month to month. The more striking number sits underneath, in a table showing how far past the four largest networks the average swap now reaches.

The report ends with three observations, and none of them look like a price forecast. For analysts and media readers: it seems that panic has its own half-life; the breadth of listing looks more like insurance than advertising; and demand continues to shift not towards changing what you own, but towards changing where you keep it. The first of these conclusions will be tested in the second half of the year — a new drawdown of comparable depth will either confirm that the market reaction continues to fade, or show that it has reset to zero after a quiet period.

The full report comprises six sections and includes data contributed by SwapSpace, Swapzone, Rubic, and Near Intent, along with comments from Talisman Wallet and Kuvi.AI, noting where those partners disagree with the platform’s own reading.

About the report

The SimpleSwap H1 2026 Swap Report covers 1 January to 30 June 2026, benchmarked against the second half of 2025. Each section opens with a public market benchmark before any internal figure appears, drawing on CoinGecko for exchange volumes and capitalization, DeFiLlama together with Visa’s Allium-powered dashboard for stablecoin supply and settlement, Alternative.me for sentiment, and LI.FI plus Circle disclosures for cross-chain context. All figures are aggregated across swaps routed through the platform, and nothing in the report identifies a user, an address, or the timing of an individual transaction. Exactly one dollar figure appears in the text, and it is a measurement threshold rather than a platform total. The report describes past market behavior and contains no price forecasts.

Full report and methodology at SimpleSwap blog. Media and analysts can request additional data cuts at [email protected].

About SimpleSwap

SimpleSwap is a self-custodial multi-source swap aggregator. It draws liquidity from more than 20 CEX and DEX sources, covers 2,800+ assets, and handles provider and route selection under the hood. Over 8 years, 10M+ users have swapped through SimpleSwap, and 6,000+ projects use it as a business solution, including Exodus and Tangem. The only official SimpleSwap website is simpleswap.io.

The Graph says onchain AI agents need identity, structured data and payments to act autonomously.

Artificial intelligence and blockchain have spent years developing largely along parallel tracks. AI has become increasingly capable of reasoning, interpreting instructions and making decisions, while blockchain networks have created programmable financial systems that can operate without centralized intermediaries. The next stage is bringing those capabilities together.

The result could be an internet populated not only by human users, but also by autonomous AI agents capable of discovering information, making decisions, interacting with protocols and paying for services on their own.

That future requires more than increasingly powerful large language models. As The Graph Foundation explains in its Aug. 18 blog post, “The Onchain Agent Infrastructure Stack Explained,” autonomous agents need infrastructure that translates AI reasoning into reliable blockchain actions. The Graph frames the emerging stack around three fundamental requirements: identity, environmental awareness and economic agency.

Identity: Giving agents an onchain passport

Before an autonomous agent can transact, a blockchain needs a reliable way to identify it and determine what it is authorized to do.

Simply giving an AI agent access to a user’s wallet private key creates obvious problems. An incorrect decision or hallucination could expose all of the assets associated with that wallet. It also makes distinguishing between actions performed by a person and those performed by an autonomous system difficult.

ERC-8004, described by The Graph as the Trustless Agents standard, addresses this problem through three onchain registries covering identity, reputation and validation. These registries allow agents to establish recognizable identities and interact without requiring pre-existing trust between participants.

Combined with account abstraction, this model can also create tightly defined permissions. An agent might be authorized to trade only a certain amount each day, for example, without receiving unrestricted control over a user’s funds.

Identity becomes more valuable as agents develop histories. Because actions and feedback can be recorded onchain, agents can accumulate verifiable reputations that other agents and smart contracts can evaluate.

The Graph is supporting this layer through Agent0 Subgraphs, which index agent registrations, metadata, reputation information and validation activity across multiple networks. According to The Graph, this makes it possible for agents to search for other agents by characteristics such as capability or reputation without independently scanning blockchain histories.

Data: Helping AI understand the onchain world

Knowing who an agent is solves only part of the problem. An autonomous agent also needs accurate information about the environment in which it is operating.

Blockchains contain enormous amounts of transparent data, but transparency does not necessarily mean accessibility. Information is distributed across blocks, transactions, events and smart contracts. Asking an LLM to navigate that raw information directly is inefficient and can increase the risk of incorrect conclusions.

This is where blockchain indexing becomes a critical part of agent infrastructure.

The Graph’s Subgraphs organize blockchain information into structured, searchable datasets. When combined with Model Context Protocol, or MCP, that indexed information can become directly usable by AI systems. The Graph describes Subgraph MCP as effectively acting as a translator between agents and complex blockchain data.

Consider an autonomous trading agent tasked with finding an attractive opportunity involving an ETH pair. Before executing a transaction, the agent might need to compare liquidity across protocols, evaluate current conditions and confirm that the opportunity still exists.

Rather than attempting to interpret millions of blockchain logs, the agent could query the relevant Subgraphs through MCP and receive structured information it can reason about.

This illustrates an important distinction in agent infrastructure. The intelligence layer and the data layer solve different problems. An LLM may decide what information it needs and reason about the answer, while indexing infrastructure is responsible for making reliable blockchain information available in a usable format.

Payments: Giving agents economic agency

The final piece is the ability to pay.

Today’s internet payment infrastructure was largely designed around people and businesses. Users create accounts, manage subscriptions, enter payment information or manually authorize transactions. Autonomous software operating continuously cannot depend on those workflows.

The emerging x402 standard offers another model. It revives HTTP’s “402 Payment Required” status code to enable services to request payment directly as part of an internet request.

The Graph has integrated x402 into its Subgraph Gateways, allowing agents to pay for individual queries in USDC without maintaining traditional API accounts or keys. An agent requests data, receives the payment requirement, signs the payment and resubmits the request before receiving the requested information. The Graph’s GraphTally infrastructure handles settlement with Indexers behind the scenes.

The significance goes beyond paying for blockchain queries. Machine-to-machine commerce requires payment systems suited to potentially enormous volumes of small, automated transactions. If agents are constantly purchasing data, computation or services from one another, per-request micropayments can provide an economic model that more closely matches how autonomous software actually operates.

From web3 users to web3 agents

Put these layers together and a clearer picture of the onchain agent stack emerges.

An agent establishes an identity and operates within predetermined permissions. It accesses structured blockchain data to understand current conditions. It can then purchase the information or services it needs and execute an authorized action. The process can repeat without requiring a human to approve every intermediate step.

The Graph calls this process the “agent loop.” ERC-8004 provides identity and accountability, Subgraphs and MCP provide contextual awareness, while x402 and GraphTally support autonomous payments and settlement.

This architecture also points toward a broader shift in how blockchain infrastructure may be designed. Much of web3 today assumes a human is sitting behind a screen, navigating an interface, connecting a wallet and approving transactions. An agent-centric environment requires infrastructure that is machine-readable, programmable and economically autonomous by default.

The Graph already provides blockchain data infrastructure across more than 60 networks and reported that, as of early 2026, it had served more than 1.27 trillion queries to over 75,000 projects. The rise of autonomous agents potentially gives that kind of infrastructure a new class of user: software itself.

AI may provide the reasoning engine for the emerging agentic internet, but intelligence alone cannot create an autonomous economy. Agents also need identities, trustworthy data and native ways to transact. The development of that underlying stack could determine whether onchain AI remains a collection of experiments or becomes a functional machine-to-machine economy operating at internet scale.