Polymarket’s New In-House Trading Desk Sparks large Sportsbook Vibes

What Is Polymarket Building—and Why Is It Drawing Scrutiny?

Polymarket is exploring the creation of an internal market-making team that would trade directly against its users, according to discussions reported by Bloomberg. The desk would function much like a sportsbook counterparty, setting prices and absorbing risk rather than allowing markets to run purely on user-driven liquidity.

The company has been speaking with traders and sports bettors about staffing the desk. Rivals have taken similar steps — Kalshi, for example, has defended its own internal tool — but critics argue Polymarket’s version would change the character of the platform.

Statistics professor Harry Crane, a vocal observer of prediction markets, told CoinDesk that the desk offers limited financial benefit in platform for high reputational and legal risk. Crane said the company’s move is motivated by the need to generate revenue rather than user improvement: “They don’t charge fees. They don’t make money. They want to find a way to monetize.”

Investor Takeaway

Does This Turn Polymarket Into a Sportsbook?

Crane said Polymarket plans to support parlays via an RFQ system, with the in-house desk pricing and matching them. “These require significant capital to back and also offer a substantial edge for the house if executed correctly,” he said. “I think it’s short-sighted and ultimately a mistake, but time will tell.”

Sportsbooks typically take the other side of a bet and embed margin into prices, giving operators a built-in advantage. trade against each other, and prices reflect aggregated expectations rather than a house line. An internal desk would change that dynamic.

Observers say the shift risks alienating bettors who joined Polymarket precisely because it wasn’t a sportsbook. If house-set prices nudge markets rather than traders, the platform’s reputation as a real-time probability gauge could fragileen. That reputation was central during the 2024 U.S. election cycle, when media outlets cited Polymarket alongside polling data.

Is the Revenue Potential Even Worth It?

Crane also questioned the economics of the plan. “Given the huge valuations, it’s not a viable strategy to monetize, if that’s the objective,” he said. He added that even if the desk makes money, “the amount it can profit is a pittance compared to its valuation.”

There is also the matter of optics. “The company should not want an in-house trading team to be too profitable, as that will create significant PR difficultys and possible legal issues,” Crane said. He pointed to a lawsuit involving Kalshi’s in-house trading operation and said that while the claim “appears to be 100% frivolous,” the optics alone can cause damage.

Crane argued the desk would dilute Polymarket’s identity: “This diminishes Polymarket’s opportunity to diverseiate itself from the competition, and it dedicates resources and focus to something that is definitively not what got the company to this point.”

Investor Takeaway

Does the Internal Desk Introduce Data or Conflict-of-Interest Risks?

Crane said the sportsbook comparison “understates the difficulty.” He noted: “At a sportsbook it is well understood that the book is the counterparty, and will use whatever information it can to get the edge over its customers. platforms are supposed to be diverse.”

He added: “As long as there are in-house or privileged , there will always be suspicions that they are gaining an unfair advantage,” referencing a recent dispute at NoVig, where winning bets were voided because its in-house market maker was on the losing side.

Critics say the move raises many unresolved questions. Would the in-house desk gain access to order-flow patterns or deposit-timing data? Could it trade before customers? Would it simply post liquidity and collect spread? These concerns echo debates triggered by the FTX-Alameda relationship, where internal access to user flows became a central issue.

Could This Damage Polymarket’s Brand in the Long Run?

Polymarket built its name on transparency, open order books and market-driven predictions. A house-run trading desk risks altering that perception. The company did not respond to CoinDesk’s request for comment.

Crane said the business case doesn’t justify the reputational cost. “It’s a poor business decision that takes a platform that previously felt very new and diverse and instead makes it look and feel just like everyone else,” he said.

For a platform whose value hinges on trust and neutral probability signals, the move may solve a revenue issue while creating a deeper strategic one.