Table of Contents
Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan said war-related prediction market contracts are becoming increasingly difficult to manage as the sector’s public profile grows, while defending the informational value such products can provide during high-stakes global events.
Coplan made the comments at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference 2026, where he addressed the ethical tensions and regulatory risks that come with operating conflict-linked markets at scale. He described Iran as “complicated” and cited “the fog of war” as a source of misunderstanding for market participants.
Geopolitical Volume Surges
The remarks come against sharply rising user activity. Data compiled on Dune Analytics showed Polymarket users placed $425.4m on geopolitical questions in the week ending March 1, up from $163.9m the previous week — a 159% increase in seven days.
Coplan acknowledged the challenges of managing that growth, telling the conference that prediction markets face “more money, more problems” as attention increases. He did not announce any changes to Polymarket’s current contract listings.
Under US regulations, financial contracts tied to war are broadly understood to be prohibited. Most prediction market platforms operating in the US avoid them. Polymarket’s primary exchange operates offshore, which has allowed it to list contracts that US-domiciled platforms cannot.
Defending the Information Case
Coplan pushed back on critics of conflict-linked markets by pointing to their real-world utility. He told attendees:
“When I get hit up by people in the Middle East who are saying, ‘Hey, we’re looking at Polymarket to decide whether we sleep near the bomb shelter; we look at it every day’… that’s very powerful.”
On insider trading concerns — a recurring criticism of prediction markets — Coplan argued the product category differs fundamentally from equities.
“The true value proposition is information. Not all markets are equal. It is apples to oranges.”
Ric Best, head of prediction markets at Susquehanna International Group, added that the legal framework remains unsettled. “There’s not really a well-defined concept there when it comes to prediction markets,” Best said. He noted that some limits are already understood, saying platforms cannot list contracts on whether a named individual will be assassinated.
Funding Talks and Regulatory Pressure
The MIT Sloan comments land as Polymarket navigates pressure on multiple fronts. The Wall Street Journal reported on 6 March that both Kalshi and Polymarket are in preliminary talks with investors about new funding rounds that would value each platform at around $20bn — roughly double their most recent valuations. Kalshi declined to comment to Bloomberg; Polymarket did not respond. EpicWins covered the fundraising reports in detail here.
Separately, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a civil enforcement action against Kalshi, which triggered a Polymarket lawsuit over what the company described as an “immediate and concrete” threat from state-level enforcement. Nevada courts have also weighed in on the sector, with a restraining order against Polymarket earlier this year adding to the legal picture facing offshore prediction market operators.
The regulatory outlook is tightening internationally as well. Australia and New Zealand have both moved to classify or prohibit prediction market activity in recent months, with Australia’s ACMA ruling that prediction markets constitute gambling under existing law.
Coplan’s decision to address war contracts publicly — rather than avoid the topic — signals that Polymarket is prepared to defend its product positioning as the sector attracts greater scrutiny from regulators, legislators, and the public. Whether that defence holds up as volumes climb and enforcement actions multiply remains an open question.
Source: Global Gaming Insider
