U.S.-Linked Wallets Drove $571 Million in Polymarket Political Bets Despite Access Ban

What to Know

• U.S.-linked wallets traded about $571 million in notional value across Polymarket political markets over the trailing 12 months.
• That total was higher than any other country identified in the dataset, ahead of Hong Kong at $422 million.
• Polymarket blocks U.S. users by IP address because it cannot legally serve them.
• Only about 6% of Polymarket political-market wallets could be tied to a country, so the country figures should be treated as directional rather than exact.
• Geopolitics made up 46% of U.S. notional, compared with 36% for the platform overall.
• Elections represented 16% of U.S.-linked wallet activity, compared with 32% platform-wide.
• Five of the twelve largest markets for the U.S. cohort were tied to the Iran war.
• The largest single U.S.-cohort market was a $20.8 million novelty contract on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would wear a suit.
• On resolved markets, U.S.-linked wallets backed the winner 81.9% of the time, compared with 80.3% for other wallets.
• At one point, U.S.-linked wallets placed 53% of their volume on a U.S. invasion of Iran, while the rest of the market was at 26%.

U.S. Demand Persists Outside the Domestic Perimeter

U.S.-linked wallets emerged as the largest identified national source of political-market activity on Polymarket over the past year, even though the platform is not legally available to U.S. users. Wallets associated with the United States traded about $571 million in notional value across political contracts during the trailing 12 months, topping every other country identified in the analysis and exceeding Hong Kong’s $422 million.

The figures underline a central tension in the fast-growing market for event contracts: when demand is strong and settlement happens on crypto rails, access restrictions may reduce formal availability without eliminating participation. Polymarket blocks U.S. users by IP address, but the underlying structure of the platform relies on wallets and stablecoins rather than bank accounts, brokers, or conventional payment processors. That architecture makes participation more difficult to police than activity inside a fully intermediated financial system.

Market participants say the result is a regulatory gray zone in practice, even when the legal boundary is clear. A user with an existing crypto wallet and location-masking software may be able to reach offshore venues, while on-chain activity can still leave behavioral traces that point back to a likely country of origin. That distinction is important: an IP-based block may limit direct platform access, but it does not necessarily obscure wallet behavior in the broader blockchain record.

Country Figures Are Directional, Not Exact

The country-level estimates should not be read as a complete map of Polymarket’s user base. Only about 6% of political-market wallets on the platform could be tied to a country, meaning the national rankings capture an identifiable slice of activity rather than the full population. That limitation matters for interpretation, especially in a market where users can interact through self-custodied wallets and may not provide conventional identity information.

Even with that caveat, the scale of U.S.-linked activity is notable. A directional finding can still be meaningful when the identified totals are large and when the pattern is consistent across market categories. In this case, the data points to persistent U.S. appetite for political prediction markets, including categories that regulated domestic venues generally avoid or do not list.

Polymarket did not immediately respond to requests for comment ahead of U.S. market hours. The lack of immediate comment leaves the focus on what the wallet activity itself suggests: blocking U.S. access did not prevent U.S.-linked participants from becoming the largest identified national cohort in political betting on the platform.

Geopolitics Drew More U.S. Attention Than Elections

The most striking part of the activity was not only the amount traded, but also what U.S.-linked wallets chose to trade. Geopolitics accounted for 46% of U.S. notional value, compared with 36% for Polymarket overall. Elections, by contrast, made up 16% of U.S.-linked wallet activity, compared with 32% across the platform.

That split suggests U.S.-linked traders were far more engaged with foreign-conflict and international-risk contracts than with the election markets that attracted a larger share of global platform activity. In practical terms, the American-linked cohort traded foreign-war themes at nearly three times the rate it traded elections, based on the stated category shares.

Among the twelve biggest markets for the U.S.-linked cohort, five were bets related to the Iran war. The single largest market in that cohort was a $20.8 million novelty contract on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would wear a suit. These examples show how offshore prediction markets can become venues not only for broad political forecasting, but also for highly specific, sometimes unusual, event-driven wagers.

Why Offshore Markets Attract Restricted Demand

The category mix also helps explain why offshore venues continue to attract U.S.-linked activity. Regulated U.S. platforms and compliant domestic offerings tend to focus on more narrowly accepted categories such as economic data, rate decisions, and elections. Markets involving regime change, ceasefires, military escalation, or other sensitive foreign-conflict outcomes are generally not part of the same regulated menu.

That creates a demand gap. If traders want exposure to political and geopolitical outcomes that domestic venues do not carry, some may seek those markets elsewhere. Crypto-based prediction platforms can fill that gap because they are globally accessible by design, operate through blockchain settlement, and often list contracts that differ sharply from the products available inside the U.S. regulatory perimeter.

For regulators, the issue is not simply whether such markets exist. It is whether keeping certain event contracts offshore reduces risk or merely shifts activity away from venues where rules, surveillance, consumer protections, and enforcement are easier to apply. The U.S.-linked Polymarket activity suggests that prohibited access can coexist with substantial participation when users have the tools and incentives to route around restrictions.

No Clear Evidence of a U.S. Trading Edge

The data does not show that U.S.-linked wallets were better at forecasting outcomes than other participants. On resolved markets, U.S.-linked wallets backed the winning side 81.9% of the time, compared with 80.3% for everyone else. That difference is small, and the reported returns if held were nearly identical.

In other words, the U.S.-linked cohort was active, and at times aggressive, but not demonstrably superior at picking winners. The clearest example of bolder positioning came in a market tied to a potential U.S. invasion of Iran. At one point, U.S.-linked wallets placed 53% of their volume on that outcome, while the rest of the market sat at 26%.

That divergence shows stronger conviction, or at least a greater willingness to concentrate volume, but it did not translate into evidence of a sustained informational advantage. For policymakers, that distinction is important. The regulatory concern may be less about U.S.-linked traders having special predictive power and more about the migration of politically sensitive wagering into offshore markets beyond direct U.S. oversight.

A Policy Dilemma for Prediction Markets

The growth of prediction markets has created a difficult choice for regulators. One approach is to keep tighter limits on controversial contracts and restrict access to offshore platforms that list them. Another is to consider whether bringing more event markets onshore would allow activity to occur under clearer rules, with stronger compliance standards and better monitoring.

The U.S.-linked activity on Polymarket shows the limits of a purely exclusionary model in a crypto-native environment. If access controls depend heavily on IP blocking, but participation can occur through wallets and stablecoins, then enforcement may reduce compliant visibility without fully suppressing demand. Activity remains visible on-chain in some respects, but the platform itself sits outside the domestic supervisory framework.

FXCOINZ views the episode as a major signal for the next phase of prediction-market regulation. The core issue is not only whether users can be blocked, but whether markets with strong demand should remain offshore by default. If domestic venues do not list the contracts that traders want, the demand may continue to flow toward platforms that do.

Crypto Rails Keep the Debate Alive

Polymarket’s role in this debate is inseparable from its crypto infrastructure. Stablecoin settlement and wallet-based access reduce reliance on traditional intermediaries. That can make markets faster and more globally liquid, but it also complicates jurisdictional controls. There is no conventional brokerage account to close, no standard bank transfer to reject, and no simple domestic payment channel to monitor.

This structure is one reason prediction markets have become a prominent crypto use case. They combine event-driven speculation with blockchain settlement, creating liquid markets around politics, economics, and global affairs. At the same time, the same design that supports open access can clash with national rules on who may trade, what contracts may be listed, and how platforms should verify users.

The $571 million in U.S.-linked political-market notional over the trailing 12 months therefore carries significance beyond one platform. It reflects a broader question facing the crypto sector: how should borderless financial infrastructure interact with country-specific market rules? Until that question is resolved, offshore prediction markets are likely to remain a flashpoint for regulators, traders, and platforms alike.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How much did U.S.-linked wallets trade on Polymarket political markets?

U.S.-linked wallets traded about $571 million in notional value across Polymarket political markets over the trailing 12 months.

Were U.S. users allowed to access Polymarket?

Polymarket blocks U.S. users by IP address because it cannot legally serve them, but wallet-based crypto access and location-masking tools can make restrictions harder to enforce in practice.

Which country ranked behind the United States in identified activity?

Hong Kong ranked behind the United States among identified country cohorts, with $422 million in political-market notional value.

How reliable are the country-level wallet estimates?

The country figures should be treated as directional rather than exact because only about 6% of Polymarket political-market wallets could be tied to a country.

What types of markets did U.S.-linked wallets favor?

U.S.-linked wallets favored geopolitics. Geopolitical contracts made up 46% of U.S. notional, compared with 36% for the platform overall.

How did election betting compare for U.S.-linked wallets?

Elections accounted for 16% of U.S.-linked wallet activity, compared with 32% across Polymarket as a whole.

Did U.S.-linked wallets perform better than other traders?

Not meaningfully. On resolved markets, U.S.-linked wallets backed the winner 81.9% of the time, compared with 80.3% for everyone else, with nearly identical reported returns if held.

Why does this matter for regulators?

The activity suggests that blocking access may not eliminate U.S. participation. Instead, demand can move offshore, especially for geopolitical markets that regulated U.S. venues generally do not offer.

Why is this relevant to crypto markets?

Polymarket operates on crypto rails using wallets and stablecoins, making it a key example of how blockchain infrastructure can support global event markets while complicating national access controls.

Photo by www.kaboompics.com on Pexels