South Korean authorities are investigating users of prediction market platform Polymarket, raising broader questions about how prediction markets should be regulated in the Korean market.
According to police data, 26 users had been booked and 18 referred to prosecutors as of September 15. Their combined trading volume reached approximately ₩17.6 billion (~$13 million), with the largest individual amount reaching around ₩5.7 billion (~$4.2 million).
The key question is whether Polymarket should be treated as illegal gambling or a crypto-based derivatives market.
Police argue that the platform may fall under Korea’s gambling laws because users stake assets on uncertain outcomes and their financial gains or losses depend on those outcomes.
Users, however, argue that Polymarket differs from traditional gambling because it uses an order-book-based trading structure, allows positions to be closed before settlement, and operates through a non-custodial P2P model.
South Korean authorities also voted last month to block access to Polymarket. While Polymarket has argued that it does not provide Korean-language services, accept KRW payments, or directly custody user funds, authorities maintained that these technical and operational features do not exempt the platform from Korean law.
Overall,
South Korea’s case highlights a broader regulatory question: How should existing gambling and financial laws apply to emerging onchain prediction markets? 👀
According to police data, 26 users had been booked and 18 referred to prosecutors as of September 15. Their combined trading volume reached approximately ₩17.6 billion (~$13 million), with the largest individual amount reaching around ₩5.7 billion (~$4.2 million).
The key question is whether Polymarket should be treated as illegal gambling or a crypto-based derivatives market.
Police argue that the platform may fall under Korea’s gambling laws because users stake assets on uncertain outcomes and their financial gains or losses depend on those outcomes.
Users, however, argue that Polymarket differs from traditional gambling because it uses an order-book-based trading structure, allows positions to be closed before settlement, and operates through a non-custodial P2P model.
South Korean authorities also voted last month to block access to Polymarket. While Polymarket has argued that it does not provide Korean-language services, accept KRW payments, or directly custody user funds, authorities maintained that these technical and operational features do not exempt the platform from Korean law.
Overall,
South Korea’s case highlights a broader regulatory question: How should existing gambling and financial laws apply to emerging onchain prediction markets? 👀
