Wall Street predicts

According to a Financial Times post this week, prediction markets appear to be becoming Wall Street’s side hustle, creating interest as trading firms explore this activity.

According to the article, major trading houses in finance now hire specialists with caution to enter markets where users place bets on football results, elections, and economic data. Trading volumes on Polymarket and Kalshi rose around the 2024 US presidential election and continue rising as sports contracts now drive attention across platforms. Monthly volumes increased from below $100m in early 2024 to above $8bn by December 2025, creating pressure that professional traders can no longer ignore.

Firms such as DRW, Susquehanna, and crypto hedge fund Tyr Capital recruit traders to identify mispricings, perform arbitrage, and supply liquidity across prediction markets. Job listings offer six-figure base salaries to track prediction markets in real time and exploit inefficiencies, language that mirrors high-frequency trading rather than casual betting. Sources say the focus is on price gaps between platforms offering similar contracts, not outcomes like Donald Trump buying Greenland, a process analysts compare to exchange arbitrage.

Market-makers show strong interest, with Susquehanna acting as Kalshi’s first market-maker and partnering with Robinhood, while Jump Trading and Flow Traders increase activity. Platforms offer reduced fees, higher position limits, and incentives that aim to raise liquidity across prediction markets. Some hedge funds stay cautious, pointing to thinner liquidity when compared with traditional asset classes. Other firms observe only, as Saba Capital’s Boaz Weinstein highlights, prediction markets for hedging, while a source confirms the firm has not traded yet.

Warning signs exist, as Polymarket faced scrutiny after timed bets on geopolitical events and awards raised insider information concerns, leading a US congressman to propose restrictions. For now, Wall Street tests prediction markets using systems focused on value extraction rather than behaviour shown by typical users.

Spin the Wheel, and the Question Emerges

Elsewhere, Fortnite opened access to third-party micro-transactions, drawing a reaction after rapid controversy followed the change. Forbes reports the creative map Steal the Brainrot faced criticism for mechanics that resemble gambling within a mode widely used by children. Epic Games launched paid creative-map items last week, letting creators charge users for in-game content. Steal the Brainrot adopted this system, offering loot boxes costing $20 for one or $36 for two through Fortnite V-bucks bundles. Although odds appear, players reacted to pricing and noted that the bundled offer exceeds Epic pricing caps if sold directly. Another concern centres on a spin-the-wheel feature costing 100 V-bucks, near $1, which critics say mirrors slot machine behaviour.

Together with loot boxes, critics accuse Epic of allowing gambling mechanics inside a game that avoided them in core modes. When the map went offline briefly, players speculated Epic action, though developers cited a bug before restoring monetisation unchanged. Current mechanics follow Epic rules, permitting paid random items when odds appear clearly. Despite compliance, backlash continues as Epic benefits from sales shares while popular maps generate revenue, raising concerns given Fortnite’s youth audience.

Epic disabled randomised items in regions including the UK, Australia, and Belgium, while other markets continue allowing the feature. Rules remain defined, yet player sentiment stays negative across discussions.