Polymarket Bets Spark Insider Trading Concerns

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-02-27Last updated on 2026-02-27

Abstract

A blockchain investigator, ZachXBT, released a report on February 26 alleging that employees of Axiom used insider information to profit from trades on Polymarket. Prior to the report's publication, Polymarket had created a prediction market allowing users to bet on which firm would be named, attracting $40 million in volume. Analysis from Lookonchain and Polysights identified multiple wallets that placed large, profitable bets on Axiom before the information was public, netting over $1 million in total profits. One wallet, predictorxyz, saw a 7x return. ZachXBT acknowledged that contacting Axiom beforehand made a leak "mostly inevitable." Axiom expressed shock and disappointment and is investigating, but did not confirm if employees traded on the insider knowledge. The platform's lack of identity checks makes tracing bets difficult.

ZachXBT, a blockchain sleuth, published its report on February 26, in which Axiom is a firm whose employees he believed had used non-public information to position profitable trades. The scrutiny had been teased for days, and Polymarket had made a contract permitting users to bet on which firm would be named, captivating around $40 million in volume since February 23.

The issue is that someone knew the answer before it slipped. Lookonchain recognised 12 wallets that bet deliberately on Axion before the unveil, earning a net profit of more than $1 million.

Another analysis by Polysights, a data terminal that traces suspicious activity on the public ledger of Polymarket, identified five wallets that altogether bet around $50,000 and went away with $266,000.

The biggest Yes holder on the Axiom market, an account known as predictorxyz, gathered 477,415 shares at an average price of $0.14 and now stands at $411,000 in profit. That’s around a 7x return on a bet positioned before the answer became public.

The disappointment of Axiom

The second-biggest holder, an anonymous wallet, purchased 109,450 shares at $0.33, and the correction is significant. This was not a wide market full of informed guesses. ZachXB accepted that he had contacted Axiom for comment and did various interviews before publishing, making a leak “mostly inevitable”.

This says various people at the company already knew the report was coming before it actually went live. Any of them could have placed bets directly or tipped someone who did. The offshore platform of Polymarket does not have identity checks, making marking attribution difficult without cooperation from the exchange itself.

Axiom mentioned it was “shocked as well as disappointed” by the findings and would carry on to investigate. It did not reply to questions regarding whether it was aware of any employees trading on the Polymarket wager. The structural irony here is that the mechanism worked exactly as designed.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Magic Eden Shuts Bitcoin, EVM NFT Markets

TagsInsider tradingPolymarketZachXBT

Related Questions

QWhat is the main concern raised by ZachXBT's report regarding Polymarket?

AThe main concern is that employees of the firm Axiom may have used non-public, insider information to place profitable trades (bets) on the platform.

QHow much profit did the 12 wallets identified by Lookonchain make from betting on Axiom before the report was public?

AThe 12 wallets earned a net profit of more than $1 million.

QWhat was the approximate return on investment for the biggest 'Yes' holder, predictorxyz, on the Axiom market?

AThe account predictorxyz made around a 7x return on their investment.

QWhy does ZachXBT believe a leak of the report's contents was 'mostly inevitable'?

ABecause he had contacted Axiom for comment and conducted various interviews before publishing the report, meaning multiple people at the company knew it was coming.

QWhat reason is given for why it is difficult to attribute the suspicious bets to specific individuals?

APolymarket is an offshore platform that does not have identity checks, making attribution difficult without cooperation from the exchange itself.

Related Reads

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: Losses Mount Due to Vulnerable Seed Generation A critical vulnerability in Coldcard hardware wallets has led to a continued wave of fund thefts. According to Galaxy Research, the total stolen has reached 1,367.05 BTC (approx. $88.6 million) from 4,585 addresses, a significant increase from the initial 594.5 BTC reported on July 30, 2026. Most of the stolen funds remain on the attackers' addresses. The issue is not with the current firmware, which Coinkite has updated, but with seed phrases generated on vulnerable devices between March 2021 and the release of fixed firmware versions. Due to a programmer error, devices switched from using a hardware random number generator to the software-based Yasmarang generator, which was initialized with publicly accessible data like the chip's serial number. This made the seed phrases predictable through offline brute-force attacks, meaning wallets remain at risk until funds are moved to a new wallet generated with the patched firmware. Affected devices include Mk2/Mk3 with firmware 4.0.1–4.1.9 (and up to 5.0.3), Mk4/Mk5 up to version 5.6.0, and Q models up to 1.5.0Q. The only exceptions are seeds created with a high-entropy method like at least 50 independent dice rolls or a strong unique BIP-39 passphrase. All other owners must generate a new seed on the fixed firmware and transfer their assets. A case highlighting the human impact involves a 39-year-old long-term investor who lost 2 BTC (approx. $130,000) in minutes. He had accumulated the Bitcoin over eight years through physical labor, viewing it as a financial lifeline and a retirement plan in a country suffering from hyperinflation. His story underscores that even conservative "buy and hold in cold storage" strategies can be compromised by such underlying technical flaws. From a technical perspective, this incident echoes historical failures where weak random number generators undermined cryptographic security, challenging the assumption that offline storage is automatically foolproof.

cryptonews.ru21m ago

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

cryptonews.ru21m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片