In the same global time window, two completely different news items emerged almost simultaneously: on one side, the South Korean police announced the investigation of 26 Polymarket users in Korea, with 18 individuals referred to prosecutors for illegal gambling, involving a total bet amount of about 17.6 billion won, equivalent to 12.7 million dollars; prior to this, regulatory agencies and the media had already labeled Polymarket as "illegal gambling," last month blocking local users' access, and the criminal actions are just an extension of the established tone. On the other side, in the UK, a newly formed AI startup called Emulate, founded by former Google DeepMind researchers, is negotiating for a new round of financing of about 700 million dollars, with a post-funding valuation approaching 4 billion dollars, and an estimated valuation of about 3.7 billion dollars after the financing is completed— this too revolves around the behavior of "betting on the future," where on one end the state machinery tightens its grip along the path of "qualifications—blocking—filing—referral," while on the other end capital rushes to flow in the rhythm of "establishment—negotiation—high valuation." The stark contrast between regulatory crackdowns and capital pursuits forms the starting point for this article’s inquiry: when the future is treated as a tradable object, who decides what is "crime" and what is "innovation."

South Korea Bans Polymarket: After Blocking Access Comes Filing

In South Korea, Polymarket has never been a "neutral tech company" from the start. Earlier, local media and regulatory agencies had already provided a definition: a prediction market that offers betting and settlement based on the results of future events is seen as constituting illegal gambling, which set the tone for all subsequent actions. Following this thread, last month, the South Korean authorities wielded the "technical scalpel"—blocking local users' access to Polymarket, cutting off the platform's connection to users by administrative and technical means, effectively declaring that such products should not exist in the South Korean internet space.

Blocking access is not the end but a prelude to criminal proceedings. Recently, the South Korean police further filed investigations against 26 Polymarket users, with 18 individuals referred to prosecutors for illegal gambling, involving a total bet amount of about 17.6 billion won, or about 12.7 million dollars. The numbers are not massive but are sufficient to trigger criminal risks, indicating that the focus of regulatory crackdowns is not on the platform's scale but on the legal nature of the behavior: as long as one participates in betting on a platform deemed illegal gambling, even if just an ordinary user, one could be drawn into criminal proceedings. The current case is still at the filing and referral stage, with no public information about formal charges from prosecutors, but from the complete path of "qualifications—blocking—filing—referral," it can be observed that within South Korea's regulatory logic, once prediction markets are categorized under gambling, local users are no longer neutral "participants," but rather subjects of investigation who may need to bear legal consequences for their betting records at any time.

The Struggle of Prediction Markets Under the Gambling Red Line

In technical narratives, decentralized prediction markets are often packaged as "markets of information and probability": users express their judgments about the future with funds around election results, macro data, and even sports events, and then settle through event outcomes. The problem is that regulation does not follow technical white papers. In some jurisdictions, such "betting on the future" can be interpreted as a financial tool or risk management mechanism; in others, it is merely a legal definition away from casino chips. Once regulators choose the narrative path of the latter, the same interface and the same contracts can shift legally from "innovative financial application" to "illegal gambling establishment."

South Korea's handling of Polymarket serves as a clear example of this slippage. Local media and regulatory agencies first defined it as "illegal gambling," rendering this platform offering betting and settlement around future event results no longer a neutral technological facility, but embedded within the context of criminal law. Following the lockdown of access, the disconnect was between South Korean users and the platform’s technical connection; recently, the police filed investigations against 26 users—18 of whom were referred to prosecutors for illegal gambling—further equating the behavior of "participating in future event bets" with punishable actions of traditional gambling participants. From the users' perspective, what they're doing on-chain is betting probabilities and calculating odds, which experientially has no fundamental difference from a casino. This blurring of boundaries gives regulators the space to categorize prediction markets within the gambling red line while also placing all cross-border DeFi and prediction market projects under a long-term and unavoidable mainline risk: the same protocol and product can carry completely opposite labels in different jurisdictions, and once pinned as "gambling" by a country, local users may instantly shift from "players" to subjects needing to be accountable for transaction records.

Emulate's One-Month Creation, Talks of 4 Billion Dollar Valuation

At the same time that the South Korean police pushed Polymarket users from "players" to "subjects of investigation," another story unfolded in London. Emulate, founded by former Google DeepMind researchers just about a month ago, is already sitting in the front row seat of capital pursuit. According to the Financial Times in the UK, this startup—still almost in its "paper company" stage—is engaged in in-depth negotiations with potential investors, aiming to secure up to about 700 million dollars in one round of fundraising, corresponding to a post-funding valuation nearing 4 billion dollars, with an estimated valuation of about 3.7 billion dollars upon completion of financing— in traditional venture capital terms, this figure resembles that of a mature star company that has already launched a global product.

This extreme contrast in timing and valuation reflects the speed of capital competition for top talent and cutting-edge projects in the current global AI race: on one side, regulators use transaction records as evidence to trace back past betting behaviors; on the other side, investors leverage resumes as collateral to prepay for future technical returns. The briefing did not disclose Emulate's specific product direction and technical route, nor did it provide a list of potential investors, while all publicly available information mainly revolves around the founder's background and the numbers on the negotiation table, this lack of information ironically reinforces a polarized perception in the market— for supporters, the former DeepMind label is enough to support getting on board early; for skeptics, a valuation of several billion dollars in just one month is a living example of a bubble. In this extreme time compression race, the mismatch between regulation, capital, and technology itself represents the most scrutinizable gambling aspect in the current AI era.

The Contrast Between Regulatory Crackdown on Prediction Markets and Capital Betting on AI

In the same global time window, South Korea and the UK are like two ends of the same gambling table. The South Korean police have filed cases against 26 Polymarket users, with 18 being referred to prosecutors for "illegal gambling," involving a total bet amount of about 17.6 billion won, deemed to be ordinary people using their phones to "bet" on future events. Previously, regulatory agencies and media had classified Polymarket as gambling, moving to a blockage of access last month and now to a recent criminal escalation. The endpoint of this path points to a zero-tolerance approach by sovereign states towards "betting on the future": as long as it falls outside the legal framework of the country, even the smallest chips can be seen as a source of risk.

Almost synchronously on the other end, Emulate in the UK was lifted onto the financial table by capital at the center of the financial landscape. Founded less than a month ago by former DeepMind researchers, it has begun in-depth negotiations with institutional investors: planning to raise up to about 700 million dollars at a post-funding valuation close to 4 billion dollars. This too is betting on the future, but the subjects have shifted from specific events like elections and sports events to the yet-immature prospects of AI technology; the bettors evolved from ordinary users in Korea to professional capital in the UK and around the world; the amount transitioned from the 17.6 billion won in involved bets to several billion dollars-level concentrated bets within a compliant financial environment. Sovereign state regulatory viewpoints primarily ask "Is it legal, does it count as gambling?" whereas global capital markets inquire “Can growth be captured amidst risks?” The former uses criminal filings and blockages to compress prediction markets back into legal boundaries, while the latter opens up a more lenient trial-and-error space for AI with high valuations and large financings. This dichotomy means that crypto prediction markets may be repeatedly pulled in different jurisdictions in the future, while AI tracks continue to accelerate boundary exploration under the auspices of capital, and the fates of the two are heading in completely different directions within the same betting scheme.

The Diverging Paths from South Korean Police to London VC

From South Korea to the UK, one path is that of criminal investigation: regulatory agencies first explicitly classified Polymarket as illegal gambling, blocking access last month, and recently, the police filed cases against 26 local users, with 18 being referred to prosecutors for illegal gambling, placing the 17.6 billion won bets entirely within the purview of criminal law; the other path is the capital betting route: former DeepMind researcher founded Emulate in London and was allowed to negotiate a funding round of up to 700 million dollars at a post-funding valuation close to 4 billion dollars within a month, pulling this early-stage model company directly into the spotlight of institutional funding. Behind these two paths are starkly different governance logics and betting preferences: one prioritizes delineating legal red lines, while the other amplifies technological expectations. In a future where crypto trading and AI applications continue to intertwine, as prediction markets, model companies, and even more hybrid forms emerge simultaneously, the tightening of regulation and the pursuit of capital are likely to pull in different directions for a long time. The same product may present completely different fates under different jurisdictions and time cycles. For readers, whether participating in prediction markets similar to Polymarket or chasing AI concept stocks like Emulate, understanding the legal environment and funding cycles they are in remains a premise for grasping this "regulatory and AI gambling" situation and minimizing personal risk.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。