How the verdict was reached

Polymarket is reportedly preparing a major new funding push that would significantly deepen its backing from politically connected capital. According to the Wall Street Journal, 1789 Capital—where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner—is set to invest around $300 million in the blockchain-based prediction market as part of a broader $1 billion fundraising round.

The same report says the round could value Polymarket at $21 billion. If it closes as described, 1789 Capital’s participation would be large enough to move the firm into one of Polymarket’s most prominent investors.

Key takeaways

• 1789 Capital is reportedly planning an approximately $300 million investment in Polymarket within a $1 billion round.
• The reported round would value Polymarket at about $21 billion, potentially reshaping the company’s investor cap table.
• ICE is still Polymarket’s largest disclosed investor, with $1.6 billion invested in preferred shares reported in an ICE 10-Q filing.
• Polymarket’s fundraising momentum is unfolding amid growing US and international regulatory pressure on prediction markets.

What 1789 Capital’s reported entry could mean

Money matters in prediction markets because it funds liquidity, infrastructure, and the ability to scale participation across event categories. A $300 million commitment—if confirmed—would represent a substantial injection of risk capital at a time when the sector is trying to expand while regulators scrutinize how these markets function.

The Wall Street Journal report also indicates that 1789 Capital is already invested in Polymarket, bringing its total exposure to about $500 million. That would position the firm among Polymarket’s largest backers once the additional investment is completed, potentially increasing its influence in governance discussions that often accompany major rounds.

Cointelegraph says it reached out to both 1789 Capital and Polymarket for comment, according to the article text provided.

Valuation questions and how the funding fits prior fundraising efforts

Polymarket’s reported funding strategy appears to be evolving alongside competition in US prediction-market offerings. Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Polymarket reportedly began talks in April to raise $400 million at a potential $15 billion valuation—lower than the valuation of Kalshi, Polymarket’s main competitor at the time, which was referenced at $22 billion.

By contrast, the new reported valuation in the Wall Street Journal—$21 billion—would reflect a different pricing environment than the earlier fundraising attempt. Whether that shift signals improved traction, investor sentiment, or simply negotiation dynamics remains unclear from the provided information, but the reported numbers suggest Polymarket is aiming for a materially higher valuation than what it sought months earlier.

Investors watching similar rounds often focus on whether valuation increases coincide with clearer compliance pathways or deeper liquidity partnerships—especially in a sector where regulatory outcomes can change quickly.

ICE’s disclosed stake highlights how concentrated backing is

Even with new entrants, Polymarket’s ownership remains dominated by large institutional investors. In a July 30 10-Q filing, ICE reported that it invested a combined $1.6 billion in Polymarket preferred shares.

ICE’s filing further states that the holdings had a carrying value of approximately $2 billion as of June 30. It also says the preferred shares represented about 22% of outstanding shares, or 14% on a fully diluted basis.

These figures illustrate a key structural point for readers: while new capital can increase the total funding available to Polymarket, the largest disclosed backer—ICE—already holds a significant portion of equity-linked exposure. Any incoming round will likely be interpreted against that backdrop, particularly when assessing how much ownership and control different investors retain after issuance.

Regulatory pressure remains the central risk as capital seeks a path forward

The funding headlines arrive during a period of intensified scrutiny of prediction markets. The provided source recounts that on Aug. 14, JPMorgan Chase reportedly ended a banking relationship with Polymarket over regulatory concerns, though it said it remains interested in potentially providing underwriting support if Polymarket seeks to go public.

On the legal front, the source says that more than a dozen US states have filed actions against Polymarket, Kalshi, or both over sports event contracts. It also notes that authorities in several countries have blocked or restricted access to Polymarket, citing gambling-related concerns—an escalation that reinforces why banks, platforms, and corporate partners may be cautious.

This regulatory pressure is relevant to fundraising for a straightforward reason: capital providers tend to price regulatory uncertainty, because outcomes can affect revenue models, user access, and the feasibility of future listings or partnerships. In that sense, Polymarket’s reported push for a high-value round is not occurring in a vacuum—it is happening while multiple jurisdictions test legal boundaries for prediction and event-contract products.

Where things stand next

If 1789 Capital’s reported $300 million commitment and the overall $1 billion round come to pass, Polymarket’s investor base would grow further at a time when the firm’s operating environment is still contested. Market participants should watch for confirmation of the deal terms, any changes to the regulatory strategy being pursued, and whether banking and compliance hurdles ease enough to support sustained growth.

Binance launched stock options on Sept. 1, giving eligible users access to physically settled contracts linked to selected U.S.-listed stocks and exchange-traded funds.

The product allows users to buy calls, which provide the right to purchase shares at a specified strike price, and puts, which provide the right to sell shares. Each contract has a fixed expiration date, according to the announcement.

The exchange is offering the service through Nest Trading Limited as the introducing broker. U.S.-regulated Alpaca Securities acts as the clearing broker and holds shares delivered through exercised contracts on behalf of Binance users.

Binance stock options use physical settlement

Physically settled options deliver the underlying shares when qualifying contracts are exercised. This differs from cash-settled derivatives, which close by paying the difference between a contract’s strike price and the asset’s settlement value.

For a call option, exercise gives the buyer the right to acquire the underlying shares at the strike price. A put gives the buyer the right to sell shares at that price, subject to the platform’s exercise, funding and position requirements.

Strategy has formally opposed MSCI’s proposed screening rules for companies with large non-operating asset holdings, arguing that the methodology unfairly targets digital asset treasury firms and could push companies including Strategy out of major global equity indexes.

In a Monday letter signed by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and CEO Phong Le, Strategy called MSCI’s proposal “discriminatory, arbitrary, and misguided” and asked the index provider to withdraw it.

“If adopted, the proposal would have no meaningful impact on Strategy’s business, but it would profoundly harm MSCI’s reputation as a reliable and neutral index provider,” Strategy wrote.

Strategy says MSCI proposal targets digital asset treasury firms

MSCI opened its latest consultation in August, proposing a new method for identifying companies whose balance sheets contain large amounts of assets it considers non-operating.

Companies whose operating assets account for less than 50% of total assets would face five additional financial-ratio tests under the proposed system. Triggering at least four of the five conditions could classify a company as non-operating and make it ineligible for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes.

The methodology examines operating asset intensity, expenses, operating cash flow, fair value changes tied to assets considered non-operating and dependence on financing to accumulate those assets.

Strategy argued that the proposal effectively revives MSCI’s earlier attempt to address digital asset treasury companies through a different screening process. The company described the latest methodology as a “pretext” for targeting DATs and challenged MSCI’s distinction between operating and non-operating assets.

MSCI considered a separate framework last year that could have removed companies with digital assets accounting for 50% or more of their total assets. Following industry opposition, the index provider kept crypto treasury firms in its indexes in January while it prepared a new review covering companies with substantial non-operating assets, as crypto.news previously reported.

Strategy opposed that earlier proposal as well, arguing that holding a large amount of Bitcoin should not make an operating company equivalent to an investment fund.

The new framework has since expanded beyond a crypto-specific threshold, though Strategy maintains that its practical effect remains concentrated on digital asset treasury companies.

MSCI simulation puts Strategy and Metaplanet at risk

The possible impact became clearer when a simulation based on May 2026 data identified Strategy, Metaplanet and U.K.-listed uranium investment company Yellow Cake as companies that would face deletion under the proposed methodology.

The MSCI simulation identified Strategy with a free-float-adjusted market capitalization of $23.93 billion, while Yellow Cake stood at $1.81 billion and Metaplanet at $654 million.

SharpLink, Center Laboratories and Lydia Holding were placed on a watchlist in the simulation because MSCI proposes different treatment for existing constituents. Under the proposed methodology, current index members would need to fail the applicable screening test in two consecutive annual reviews before removal.

Strategy challenged the basis of the screening process, saying MSCI’s use of “operating” and “non-operating” does not match established accounting definitions.

The company said neither U.S. generally accepted accounting principles nor International Financial Reporting Standards provides the distinction MSCI proposes to use. Strategy argued that existing U.S. securities law does not provide an equivalent test either.

Bitcoin is central to Strategy’s objection. MSCI treats the cryptocurrency on Strategy’s balance sheet as a non-operating asset, while Strategy reports its Bitcoin treasury as an operating segment.

According to the company, gains and losses related to its Bitcoin holdings are recorded as operating expenses following discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Strategy said MSCI would therefore be applying an index-level classification that differs from the accounting treatment used in its financial statements.

The company questioned why similar treatment would not apply to other businesses whose balance sheets contain large pools of assets. Its letter cited real estate investment trusts, timber businesses and energy infrastructure companies as examples of asset-heavy firms that could remain eligible under the proposed methodology.

Strategy argued that the difference would concentrate the effects of the test on digital asset treasury firms even though MSCI has presented the proposal as a company-wide screening framework.

Strategy wants MSCI to define its asset test

If MSCI proceeds with the proposal, Strategy asked the index provider to base any final methodology on recognized accounting or legal standards.

The company wants the rules applied only to financial filings released after the methodology has been finalized, preventing companies from being assessed retrospectively against a classification that did not exist when earlier filings were prepared.

Strategy requested a published record of the consultation process and asked MSCI to explain why the screening method is needed.

It wants the index provider to set objective criteria separating operating assets and activities from those considered non-operating, instead of relying on classifications that Strategy said lack established definitions.

The current dispute follows months of uncertainty over how major index providers should treat companies that use their balance sheets to hold Bitcoin and other digital assets.

When MSCI paused its earlier DATCO exclusion in January, Strategy shares rose as the immediate risk of removal from MSCI indexes eased.

The earlier debate had raised concerns about potential passive selling if companies were removed from benchmarks followed by index-tracking funds. JPMorgan estimated at the time that exclusion from MSCI indexes alone could lead to roughly $2.8 billion in selling of Strategy shares, with potential outflows reaching $8.8 billion if other index providers followed.

The estimate related to MSCI’s previous crypto-specific proposal and was not a forecast for the methodology currently under consultation.

MSCI is accepting comments on the latest proposal until Sept. 30 and plans to publish the outcome by Oct. 16. Any changes adopted following the consultation are expected to take effect in December.

Strategy continues building its Bitcoin position

The MSCI dispute comes as Strategy continues operating the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin treasury.

Strategy shares gained 4.42% on Monday to close at $132.94. On the same day, the company said it purchased 4,603 BTC during the previous week at an average price of $80,318 per Bitcoin.

Its capital structure has changed considerably during 2026 as the company has balanced Bitcoin purchases with cash reserves, preferred dividends and share issuance.

In June, Strategy added another 520 Bitcoin for roughly $35 million at an average price of $67,068 per coin, taking its holdings at the time to 847,363 BTC. The same filing showed the company had increased its U.S. dollar reserve by $300 million to $1.4 billion.

Treasury activity later moved in the opposite direction as Strategy used Bitcoin sales and equity financing for capital management.

By late July, the company had begun directing proceeds from common-share issuance toward its dollar reserve instead of immediately using the funds for additional Bitcoin purchases. One weekly filing showed Strategy raised $544.5 million by selling nearly 5.43 million MSTR shares while making no Bitcoin purchase during that period.

The company said the cash reserve could be used to cover preferred dividend obligations and other corporate needs.

Strategy later resumed Bitcoin purchases, including the 4,603 BTC acquisition disclosed Monday, while MSCI’s consultation determines whether companies with balance sheets dominated by assets it classifies as non-operating should remain eligible for its global equity indexes.