Ondo Finance has partnered with Broadridge Financial Solutions to bring voting tools to holders of tokenized stocks and ETFs.

The integration will allow holders of more than 250 Ondo tokenized assets to submit voting preferences for the underlying securities.

Broadridge will provide access to investor communications, prospectuses, regulatory filings, and other governance materials.

The company settles more than $15 trillion in securities daily and serves over 10,000 public companies.

Voting preferences will reflect token ownership

Ondo said voting recommendations will be weighted based on each holder’s token ownership.

With Ondo Global Markets’ consent, Broadridge may aggregate tokenholder voting preferences with votes from traditional market investors.

Meanwhile, the partnership comes as Ondo asks the U.S. SEC to support its model for recording securities interests as Ethereum tokens.

Ondo says the tokens act as an operational overlay on existing broker-dealer custody, not as a change to investor protections.

“This is about expanding what it means to hold a tokenized stock,” said Matthieu de Vergnes, global head of institutional at Ondo Finance.

“Today’s announcement represents a major milestone in the evolution of tokenized equities and ETFs,” said Doug DeSchutter, president of investor communication solutions at Broadridge.

Key Takeaways

• Q1 earnings per share landed at $0.38, missing analyst expectations of $0.39, while revenue reached $1.07B versus $1.14B forecasted
• Cryptocurrency revenue plummeted 47% compared to the prior year, declining to $134 million, while crypto trading volume decreased 48% to $24 billion
• Shares of HOOD declined approximately 9.4% during after-hours trading session
• The prediction markets segment showed exceptional growth with 8.8 billion event contracts executed, representing a 780% increase from Q2 2025
• Bottom-line profits increased 3% year-over-year, reaching $346 million, even as topline revenue disappointed

---

Robinhood experienced a challenging Tuesday evening following its first-quarter earnings release. The trading platform delivered financial results that fell short of expectations across key metrics, triggering an immediate reaction from investors — shares plummeted roughly 9.4% after the closing bell.

The company’s adjusted earnings per share for the first quarter registered at $0.38, narrowly missing the Street consensus of $0.39. Overall revenue climbed to $1.07 billion, representing a 15% increase from the same period last year, yet significantly trailing the analyst forecast of $1.14 billion. The revenue shortfall amounted to approximately 6%, while the EPS miss reached 11.6%.

The primary driver behind the disappointment? Cryptocurrency.

Transaction-based revenue from crypto assets collapsed 47% compared to last year’s quarter, tumbling from $252 million down to $134 million. Meanwhile, cryptocurrency trading volumes contracted 48% to reach $24 billion. This marked the third consecutive quarter where the platform witnessed declining crypto transaction revenues.

Robinhood Markets, Inc., HOOD

Chief Executive Vlad Tenev tackled the issue directly during the company’s earnings conference call. “I want to get away from talking about the price of bitcoin,” he stated, indicating a strategic shift away from dependency on cryptocurrency price fluctuations for revenue generation.

Tenev positioned crypto as a long-term infrastructure opportunity instead. “We’re at the very beginning of what’s going to be a tokenization supercycle,” he explained, highlighting the firm’s broader blockchain strategy.

While crypto represented a significant headwind, other segments delivered positive results. Overall transaction-based revenue climbed to $623 million from $583 million in the year-ago period. The company maintained profitability with net income advancing 3% year-over-year to $346 million.

Prediction Markets Emerge as Growth Driver

The quarter’s most impressive performance came from Robinhood Predictions. The platform’s users executed an unprecedented 8.8 billion event contracts throughout Q1 — representing a staggering 780% surge compared to Q2 2025, when the feature first launched for a complete quarter.

This robust activity propelled “other transaction revenue” upward by 320% year-over-year to $147 million, providing a crucial counterbalance to cryptocurrency losses. According to Tenev, Robinhood Predictions is on pace to generate approximately $3 billion in trading volume for April alone.

The prediction market functionality operates through an integration with Kalshi and has experienced rapid adoption since its March 2025 introduction.

Additional revenue streams including net interest income and Gold subscription fees also delivered positive contributions as Robinhood expands its comprehensive financial services ecosystem.

Bitstamp Results Reported Separately

An important detail: Bitstamp, the cryptocurrency exchange that Robinhood acquired in June 2025, was excluded from the consolidated crypto metrics mentioned above. The standalone exchange processed $42 billion in trading volume throughout Q1, representing a 13% decline from Q4 2025.

This represents substantial volume that isn’t reflected in Robinhood’s primary crypto reporting, meaning the complete scope of cryptocurrency activity across the combined platform exceeds what the reported decline might suggest.

Coinbase (COIN), scheduled to announce earnings on May 7, also experienced a roughly 1% decline on Tuesday — the two companies frequently exhibit correlated movements given their mutual exposure to retail cryptocurrency trading activity.

Robinhood’s first-quarter performance illustrates a platform undergoing strategic transformation, pivoting toward prediction markets and diversified financial services while its historically strong cryptocurrency segment experiences headwinds.

Quick Overview

• Bitcoin maintains position just under $77,000 with a modest 0.1% increase over 24 hours
• Crude oil prices jumped above $111 per barrel following news of potential U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz
• Leading altcoins including ETH, XRP, SOL and BNB post weekly losses; Dogecoin stands as sole gainer
• Market expert Zaheer Ebtikar suggests seller exhaustion has reduced BTC’s reaction to macroeconomic developments
• Critical price zones: $75,000 represents crucial support level, $80,000 breakout needed to sustain bullish momentum

---

Bitcoin continues to demonstrate remarkable stability around the $77,000 mark despite turbulence in energy markets and a broader cryptocurrency selloff. The flagship digital asset shows a minimal 0.1% gain over the last day while posting a 0.8% weekly decline.

Brent crude oil prices surged beyond $111 per barrel after the Wall Street Journal revealed that President Donald Trump instructed advisors to prepare for a prolonged U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. WTI crude simultaneously crossed back above the $100 threshold on Tuesday.

In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed Iran communicated it was experiencing a “State of Collapse” and sought the reopening of the Strait. Iranian officials have suggested openness to an interim agreement contingent on Washington removing its blockade of Iranian ports.

[[LINK_START_0]]https://twitter.com/wallstengine/status/2049119139370045712?s=20[[LINK_END_0]]

The energy market turmoil sent shockwaves through risk-sensitive assets. U.S. equity markets opened in negative territory Tuesday, though Nasdaq 100 futures managed to recover 0.4% during Asian trading sessions.

BTC/USD experienced a brief drop below $76,000 during Tuesday’s Wall Street opening before staging a modest recovery. This marked a seven-day low and reversed much of the earlier weekly gains.

Alternative Cryptocurrencies Struggle as Bitcoin Dominance Expands

While Bitcoin demonstrated relative strength, the broader top 10 cryptocurrencies surrendered recent gains. Ethereum declined 2.6% weekly to reach $2,310. XRP tumbled 3.8% to $1.39. Solana decreased 3.2% to $84.57. BNB retreated 2.3% to $625.

Dogecoin emerged as the notable outlier, climbing 5.5% over the week to $0.1016. It remained the only top-10 non-stablecoin asset posting positive seven-day returns.

Consequently, Bitcoin’s market dominance metric has been gradually increasing. This pattern typically emerges during periods of macroeconomic uncertainty when capital flows toward the most established cryptocurrency.

Zaheer Ebtikar, founder of Split Research, explained to CoinDesk that this market behavior signals a fundamental transformation.

“The supply overhang has finally dried up,” he said. “Bitcoin is far less sensitive to regulatory noise or central bank policy than people think. Its sensitivity is purely a function of wider volatility.”

Critical Price Thresholds Under Trader Scrutiny

Bitget analysts highlighted $75,000 as the essential support threshold. A decisive breach below this level could trigger additional downward pressure. Conversely, a push back toward $80,000 from current levels would preserve the bullish structure.

Glassnode, an on-chain analytics provider, observed that ongoing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz continue constricting supply and generating widespread market anxiety.

https://twitter.com/glassnode/status/2049116949343342999?s=20

Material Indicators, a trading analytics service, noted that BTC bulls lack strong conviction for a robust double-bottom recovery and cautioned about increasing volatility approaching the month’s end.

Analyst Ali Charts (@alicharts) highlighted that [[LINK_START_2]]Bitcoin[[LINK_END_2]] is penetrating a significant trendline, suggesting a possible momentum shift.

[[LINK_START_3]]https://twitter.com/alicharts/status/2049171282650906678?s=20[[LINK_END_3]]

Analyst Ted (@TedPillows) indicated that a monthly close above present levels could ignite a rally toward $80,000, whereas closing below would likely validate $79,500 as the local peak.

[[LINK_START_4]]https://twitter.com/TedPillows/status/2049193775122223420?s=20[[LINK_END_4]]

The Federal Reserve’s upcoming rate decision announcement is scheduled for Wednesday. The European Central Bank follows Thursday. These monetary policy events could inject fresh volatility into both cryptocurrency and conventional financial markets.

BTC currently trades just beneath $77,000, maintaining its consolidation range as market participants await the next macroeconomic catalyst.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin, alleging that federal law governs prediction-market contracts and that Wisconsin’s actions to curb or criminalize these markets interfere with that framework. The complaint follows Wisconsin’s own litigation against five platforms—Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Coinbase—each of which the state contends operates prediction-market activity subject to state gaming licensing requirements.

The CFTC said in a statement that the lawsuit against Wisconsin was brought “in response to the state’s lawsuits against Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Coinbase, five CFTC-regulated prediction markets.” CFTC Chairman Michael Selig emphasized that states cannot contravene Congress’s clear directive on financial market regulation. “States cannot circumvent the clear directive of Congress,” he stated. “Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others: if you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you.”

According to the agency, the action is its fifth affair with a state seeking to halt prediction-market activity. The CFTC previously pursued complaints against New York and, earlier this month, filed suits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois after those states moved to regulate or shut down platforms operating event contracts. The Wisconsin filing underscores the ongoing, broader legal clash over whether state action may constrain federally regulated markets or whether such markets remain exclusively within federal oversight.

Michael Selig speaking on stage at Bitcoin 2026 in Las Vegas. Source: YouTube

Wisconsin’s lawsuit, filed in federal court, mirrors the state’s broader position that prediction markets that offer sports-related event contracts constitute illegal gambling requiring state gaming licenses. The CFTC and the platforms have consistently rejected that view, arguing that such contracts fall under federal regulation as designated contract markets. The agency contends that Wisconsin’s gambit to criminalize or block these markets would undermine the federal framework established to regulate national swaps markets.

In its complaint, the CFTC argued that Wisconsin’s attempts to criminalize federally regulated markets intrude on the exclusive federal scheme Congress designed to oversee national swaps markets. The agency sought a declaration that state gambling laws do not apply to CFTC-regulated designated contract markets and a permanent injunction preventing Wisconsin from enforcing state actions against prediction markets. The complaint named Wisconsin Governor Anthony Evers, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, and the Wisconsin Gaming Division and its administrator, John Dillett, as defendants alongside the state’s actions.

State officials were contacted for comment, but no additional statements were provided in the initial disclosures. The legal maneuver comes amid a broader policy dispute about the proper locus of regulation for prediction markets, a class of financial infrastructure that has evolved rapidly alongside crypto-enabled platforms and traditional financial market mechanisms.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC asserts exclusive federal jurisdiction over prediction-market event contracts, arguing that state gaming laws cannot override the federally regulated framework for designated contract markets.
• The Wisconsin action targets five platforms—Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Coinbase—in the context of Wisconsin’s broader claim that prediction markets operate as illegal gambling without proper licensing.
• This case marks the fifth time the CFTC has sued a state to block state-level actions against prediction markets, following recent suits against New York, Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois.
• The complaint explicitly links the federal regulatory regime to the operation of designated contract markets, seeking injunctive relief to prevent Wisconsin from taking enforcement actions against these markets.
• For market participants, the proceedings underscore ongoing regulatory contention around jurisdiction, licensing, and compliance requirements for prediction-market platforms in the United States, with implications for AML/KYC frameworks and licensing regimes.

Federal framework versus state enforcement: legal framing and implications

The core legal question in Wisconsin’s dispute centers on the proper locus of regulation for prediction-market contracts, which are traded on designated contract markets under federal law. The CFTC’s position rests on the argument that the contracts—designed to settle on the outcome of real-world events such as sports results or other occurrences—are financial instruments that fall within the federal regime administered by the CFTC, and that designated contract markets operate under federal preemption. In this view, state gambling statutes and licensing schemes cannot legitimately compel or criminalize activity that the federal government has already cleared for operation under the designated contract market framework.

Observers note that the CFTC’s ongoing strategy is to defend a narrow yet potentially far-reaching jurisdictional principle: that federal preemption governs the operation of national markets that rely on centralized, federally supervised trading venues. By layering state gaming or gambling statutes atop or alongside this regime, Wisconsin argues a traditional state authority to license or prohibit activities within its borders. The dispute thus embodies a fundamental tension in U.S. financial regulation: the balance between state-level enforcement prerogatives and the reach of federal market governance, particularly as new market mechanisms emerge at the intersection of traditional finance and digital platforms.

From a policy and enforcement perspective, the case contributes to the broader debate about how to regulate fast-evolving, technology-enabled markets. If federal courts affirm the CFTC’s exclusive-oversight position, platforms operating prediction markets could gain greater regulatory clarity and uniform compliance expectations, potentially reducing the cost and complexity of navigating multiple state regimes. Conversely, if states succeed in asserting licensing or prohibitory authority, a patchwork regulatory environment could emerge, complicating cross-state operations and raising questions about the enforceability of federal prerogatives in the face of diverse state laws.

Implications for platforms, compliance, and market structure

The Wisconsin action explicitly centers on five platforms that the state contends operate in a regulated space that requires state gaming licenses. Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Coinbase are named in the litigation, with the CFTC asserting that their activities fall under the federal designation of contract markets and are therefore subject to federal oversight rather than state gambling statutes. The dual-layered enforcement posture—state lawsuits paired with federal action—highlights the complex compliance implications for platforms that bridge traditional financial markets, crypto assets, and prediction markets.

For regulated venues, the case underscores the importance of robust, federally compliant gatekeeping measures, including registration as a designated contract market and adherence to the range of obligations that accompany such status. It also emphasizes the need for clear customer due diligence and transaction monitoring to remain aligned with AML/KYC frameworks prominent in federal oversight. While the platforms named have operated with varying degrees of federal recognition, this litigation signals that regulators are prepared to assert that federal permission is a prerequisite to offering prediction-market contracts on U.S. soil.

Beyond platform-level implications, the proceedings have bearings on licensing, cross-border access, and the interface with other regulatory bodies, including the SEC, DOJ, and financial-market authorities. The broader policy environment—characterized by heightened scrutiny of crypto-enabled financial services—may prompt exchanges and institutions to reassess product catalogs, risk controls, and interagency coordination to meet evolving compliance expectations. The case also intersects with ongoing debates about market integrity, insider trading risk, and transparent governance of event-driven instruments in a rapidly changing market ecosystem.

Closing perspective

The Wisconsin litigation reinforces a continuing crosswinds between state authority and federal market regulation in the United States, particularly as prediction markets evolve alongside traditional finance and crypto-native platforms. The outcome will shape how states calibrate their enforcement actions and how platforms structure compliance programs to align with a federal preemption narrative. As courts adjudicate these questions, observers should watch for rulings that clarify the boundaries of state licensing power and the resilience of the CFTC’s designated contract market framework in a rapidly changing regulatory landscape.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has sued Wisconsin, escalating its legal push to block state action against federally regulated prediction market platforms.

According to a statement from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the lawsuit responds directly to Wisconsin’s recent complaints against Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Coinbase, all of which operate prediction markets under federal oversight.

“States cannot circumvent the clear directive of Congress,” CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said, adding that similar warnings have been issued to New York, Arizona, and other states pursuing comparable enforcement. 

“Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others: if you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you.”

Filed alongside the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in a Wisconsin federal court, the complaint argues that event-based contracts listed on registered exchanges fall under the agency’s “exclusive jurisdiction” as designated contract markets. The filing states that Wisconsin’s attempt to apply gambling laws “intrudes on the exclusive federal scheme Congress designed to oversee national swaps markets.”

The regulator has asked the court to declare that state gambling statutes do not apply to CFTC-regulated platforms and to issue a permanent injunction preventing Wisconsin from pursuing enforcement actions.

State lawsuits collide with federal oversight claims

Wisconsin’s legal action, filed days earlier, targets the same set of platforms over contracts tied to real-world outcomes, including sports events. In complaints reviewed from Dane County filings, state prosecutors argue that users place money on event outcomes and receive fixed payouts, a structure Attorney General Josh Kaul described as falling within the state’s definition of betting. 

“Thinly disguising unlawful conduct doesn’t make it lawful,” Kaul said in the earlier case.

State filings also cited marketing language from platforms, including descriptions framing their services as nationwide betting systems, while pointing to transaction fees collected on trades as comparable to casino revenue models.

Federal regulators and industry participants have rejected that framing. The CFTC’s complaint reiterates that such contracts qualify as swaps under federal commodity law, a position that has also been supported in prior litigation, including a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that treated the regulator’s decision not to block certain contracts as effectively resolving jurisdictional questions.

Wisconsin’s case adds to a growing list of state-level actions. According to prior filings, New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Coinbase Financial Markets and Gemini Titan over similar products, while authorities in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Nevada have issued enforcement actions ranging from lawsuits to cease-and-desist orders.

The CFTC’s suit against Wisconsin becomes its fifth case against a U.S. state this month, following earlier actions against New York, Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois, as the agency continues to argue that regulation of prediction markets rests solely at the federal level.

Google has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide its artificial intelligence models for use on classified systems.

According to The Information, citing a person familiar with the matter, the Pentagon can deploy Google’s AI tools for “any lawful government purpose” under the terms of the deal. The arrangement places Google alongside OpenAI and xAI, both of which have also secured contracts to supply AI models for classified use.

Such classified networks support highly sensitive operations, including mission planning and weapons targeting, where access to advanced AI systems is increasingly seen as critical.

The agreement is part of a wider push by the Pentagon, which in 2025 signed contracts worth up to $200 million each with leading AI developers, including Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. Earlier reporting from Reuters indicated that defense officials had been urging AI firms to make their systems available on classified networks without the usual user-facing restrictions.

AI safeguards and usage restrictions

As part of the contract, Google is expected to assist in modifying its AI safety filters at the government’s request, the report said.

The agreement includes explicit safeguards stating that “the AI System is not intended for, and should not be used for, domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons (including target selection) without appropriate human oversight and control.”

At the same time, the terms clarify that Google does not have the authority to “control or veto lawful government operational decision-making,” leaving final use decisions in the hands of defense officials.

Google said it continues to support government agencies across both classified and unclassified work. A company spokesperson added that it remains aligned with the view that AI should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons without human oversight.

Friction over AI usage boundaries

The Pentagon has maintained that it does not intend to deploy AI for mass surveillance of Americans or for fully autonomous weapons, while still insisting that “any lawful use” of AI should remain available to the government.

That position has created friction with some AI providers, most notably Anthropic. The company resisted earlier Pentagon demands to remove safeguards from its Claude models that restrict use in autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance.

The dispute escalated to the point where the Defense Department labeled Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” even as interest in its technology persisted within government agencies.

Additional reporting suggests that internal demand has complicated the Pentagon’s stance. The National Security Agency has reportedly secured access to Anthropic’s advanced “Mythos Preview” model despite the designation. The model, known for its strong cyber capabilities, is being used by select organizations to identify vulnerabilities in digital systems.

The situation has led to a broader standoff between AI developers and defense officials over how far usage rights should extend, especially around the scope of “all lawful purposes” and the limits of safety guardrails in military environments.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Tuesday sued the state of Wisconsin in the agency’s latest effort to assert jurisdiction over prediction markets after the state sued multiple platforms.

The CFTC said in a statement that it filed the lawsuit against Wisconsin “in response to the state’s lawsuits against Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com, Robinhood, and Coinbase, five CFTC-regulated prediction markets.”

“States cannot circumvent the clear directive of Congress,” CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said. “Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others: if you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you.”

It is the agency’s fifth lawsuit against a US state that seeks to halt action against prediction markets. The CFTC sued New York on Friday and filed lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois earlier this month after the states sued prediction market platforms.

Michael Selig speaking on stage at Bitcoin 2026 in Las Vegas on Monday. Source: YouTube

Wisconsin sued the five companies on Thursday, and like many US state authorities, argued that prediction markets offering sports-related event contracts are illegal betting that requires state gaming licenses.

It is an assertion the platforms and the CFTC have rebuffed in the past, arguing the contracts are regulated only under federal law.

The CFTC argued in its latest complaint, filed alongside the Justice Department’s Civil Division in a Wisconsin federal court, that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the event contracts on prediction markets, regulated as designated contract markets under federal law.

Related: With no bipartisan leadership, CFTC won’t ‘slow down‘ on rulemaking

“Wisconsin’s attempt to criminalize and shut down federally regulated markets intrudes on the exclusive federal scheme Congress designed to oversee national swaps markets,” the CFTC wrote in its complaint.

The agency asked the court to rule that state gambling laws do not apply to CFTC-regulated designated contract markets and issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Wisconsin from taking action against prediction markets.

The CFTC’s complaint also named Wisconsin Governor Anthony Evers, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and the Wisconsin Gaming Division and its administrator, John Dillett.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice, the state’s Division of Gaming and Governor Evers’ office were contacted for comment.

Magazine: How to fix suspected insider trading on Polymarket and Kalshi

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Solana price has been consolidating within the $75-$100 range since early February this year. Now, a confirmed breakout from a descending parallel channel puts the asset in a position to challenge higher resistance levels after months of sideways movement.

After climbing to a month high of $90.3 on April 17, Solana (SOL) price fell nearly 8% to $83 amid profit taking by investors and a broader rotation away from risk assets amid concerns over stalled U.S.-Iran peace negotiations and rising oil prices. The 7th largest token has fallen nearly 33% so far since the beginning of this year. 

Despite this significant drop, its charts have now flashed a bullish signal for the medium term. 

On the daily chart, Solana price has broken out of a multi-year descending parallel channel from mid-September last year. A breakout from such a pattern has historically led to a shift in market sentiment from bears back to bulls. 

In Solana’s case, the breakout positions Solana for a steady upside in the coming weeks with a potential rally to as high as $155, a level calculated by adding the height of the channel to the point of breakout.

However, other technical indicators suggest some caution ahead of the next leg higher. Notably, the supertrend has flipped red, which means the immediate short-term trend remains under selling pressure.

At the same time, the MACD lines have formed a bearish crossover, which has often been the precursor to further consolidation before a sustained move upward.

Meanwhile, a major bullish catalyst for the ecosystem is that Solana Company recently raised $8 million through a share sale to global institutional investors like Mirae Asset and HashKey Capital.

The development allows the digital asset treasury to significantly expand its holdings by purchasing additional SOL tokens directly from the market, providing a solid foundation of institutional demand.

Private companies are gradually moving past the early stages of experimenting with artificial intelligence, with many larger firms now beginning to report measurable returns from their investments.

According to a new survey by Deloitte, nearly two-thirds (64%) of private companies with an annual revenue of $500 million or more have achieved moderate to significant return on investment (ROI) from AI initiatives. This marks a sharp contrast from smaller firms, where only 11% reported such levels of returns.

The findings also bring to light a broader shift in how private companies are now approaching AI. More than half (52%) of the business leaders surveyed said that expanding AI use across their organizations is now a top-three priority for the next 12 months, a figure that has gone up significantly from 22% a year earlier.

At the same time, 63% of respondents said their organizations are actively investing in digital transformation initiatives, including AI, compared with 33% that remain in limited or pilot stages.

Scaling efforts and key challenges

Larger firms have been leading the charge in deployment. About 74% of higher revenue companies reportedly said they are expanding AI across select functions, compared with 38% of smaller firms.

The main business priorities driving this push are revenue growth at 71% and improved productivity at 62% as companies look to automate complex workflows.

Funding for these initiatives is largely coming from internal sources. Half of those surveyed said budget reprioritization will be their primary funding method, followed by existing operating capital at 43%.

Despite the progress, significant roadblocks still hinder full-scale implementation. Data quality and availability were cited as the biggest challenges by 72% of respondents. Other issues include gaps in AI skills and leadership (53%), integration with legacy systems (48%), and difficulty scaling projects beyond the pilot stage (48%).

The survey also found uneven oversight at the board level. While boards are generally active in areas such as technology investment and cybersecurity, fewer respondents said they are proactive in monitoring the ethical use of AI or leadership readiness for digital transformation.

The findings are based on a March 2026 survey of 100 U.S. private company leaders, including senior executives and board members.