Insider Information About American Military May Be Leaked on Polymarket

cryptonews.ruPubblicato 2026-08-20Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-08-20

Introduzione

According to a study by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective, activity on the Polymarket prediction platform may allow insider trading to become a signal that other traders and bots can copy. The research suggests that over 150 wallets on Polymarket may have traded on non-public information related to the U.S. military. Analysts examined all settled markets on May 5th, flagging "risky" bets—defined as wagers of at least $2,500 placed within an hour on outcomes with a 35% or lower probability. They identified 556 "orca" wallets, which often opened accounts, made successful risky bets on niche markets where insiders could have an advantage, then withdrew funds and disappeared. Among these, 152 wallets were notably successful on military and defense-related markets, earning a total of $8 million with an average win rate of 97.2%. The report notes that U.S. soldier Gannon C. Van Dyke, charged in April for alleged trading based on classified information, built his positions more slowly and was not among this top group. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi are taking steps to prevent abuse, with Kalshi planning to collect employment information from traders seeking access to certain contracts potentially linked to insider information or manipulation.

According to new research on activity on the Polymarket International platform, public registries of prediction markets can turn insider trading into a signal that other traders and bots can copy.

The non-profit organization Anti-Corruption Data Collective reported that over 150 wallets on the platform may have been trading on insider information about the U.S. military.

The specialists analyzed all of Polymarket's settled markets as of May 5 and identified "risky" bets. These are defined as bets of at least $2,500, placed within an hour, on outcomes with a probability of 35% or lower.

They identified 556 wallets, which they dubbed "killer whales." Such traders often opened accounts, quickly made successful risky bets on niche markets where insiders could have an informational advantage, and then withdrew funds and disappeared.

Out of these wallets, 152 were particularly successful in military and defense industry markets. According to the research, they earned a total of $8 million and had an average win rate of 97.2%.

Interestingly, U.S. soldier Gannon Ken Van Dyke, who was charged in April with alleged trading on Polymarket related to classified information, built up his positions more slowly and was not among the 152 accounts mentioned.

The teams at Polymarket and Kalshi are making efforts to prevent abuse. In particular, Kalshi plans to collect information about the employment of traders seeking access to specific contracts that may be linked to insider information or manipulation.

Domande pertinenti

QAccording to the article, what was the primary finding of the Anti-Corruption Data Collective regarding activity on Polymarket?

AThe organization reported that over 150 wallets on the Polymarket platform may have been trading on insider information concerning the U.S. military.

QWhat criteria did researchers use to identify 'risky' bets in their analysis of Polymarket markets?

AThey defined 'risky' bets as those of at least $2,500 placed within one hour on outcomes with a probability of 35% or lower.

QWhat name was given to the 556 wallets identified for making successful risky bets, and what was their typical behavior?

AThey were called 'orcas.' These traders often opened accounts, quickly made successful risky bets on niche markets where insiders might have an advantage, then withdrew funds and disappeared.

QHow much did the 152 particularly successful wallets in military and defense markets reportedly earn, and what was their average win rate?

AThey earned a total of $8 million and had an average win rate of 97.2%.

QWhat measures are platforms like Kalshi reportedly planning to take to prevent abuse related to insider information?

AKalshi plans to collect employment information from traders seeking access to certain contracts that could be linked to insider information or manipulation.

Letture associate

Perspective: Value Investing in U.S. Stocks Is Not the Same as Fundamental Investing

The article challenges the notion that value investing in US stocks is equivalent to fundamental investing. It uses the astronomical analogy of Henrietta Leavitt separating a star's apparent brightness from its intrinsic luminosity to illustrate a key investment framework: an observed valuation multiple (like brightness) conflates two things—the actual quality of a business and the premium the market is willing to pay for its future (its "distance" or duration). The author argues that the popular narrative of "fundamentals are dead"—fueled by momentum and concentration in mega-cap tech—is flawed. While recognizing factors like winner-take-all dynamics and AI scale advantages, the piece warns against confusing broad thematic truths (e.g., "AI is big") with justified valuations for specific companies. It introduces a 2x2 matrix categorizing stocks based on whether they *looked* cheap/expensive at a point in time versus whether they *were* actually cheap/expensive in hindsight (e.g., expensive-looking Meta in 2022 was actually cheap). The core formula presented is: Forward Return ≈ Fundamental Growth × Change in Valuation Multiple. Over short periods, multiple changes drive returns, making markets seem narrative-driven. Over the long term, fundamental growth dominates. The article concludes that markets may be becoming *less* efficient due to complex, long-duration business models, narrative cycles, and private market dynamics, creating more opportunities for investors who can disentangle real quality from market sentiment.

marsbit20 min fa

Perspective: Value Investing in U.S. Stocks Is Not the Same as Fundamental Investing

marsbit20 min fa

Wallet Connection Prompts Are a Sign of a Fake AML Check Website

Fake anti-money laundering (AML) verification sites are stealing from cryptocurrency investors. These websites trick users into connecting their wallets and signing transactions, which is unnecessary for a basic wallet check, as discovered by Malwarebytes. Legitimate wallet verification only requires a public address to analyze transaction history for links to hacks, thefts, or sanctioned entities. The fraudulent sites, some copying brands like AMLBot, mimic this process. After a user initiates a scan, they are prompted to connect their wallet, shown fake progress bars, and sometimes asked to pay a small "fee." Eventually, a false "clean, low risk" verdict is given to download a report. Connecting a wallet reveals the public address and assets, allowing scammers to craft targeted transactions for the victim to approve, which can drain funds. Malwarebytes warns that any AML checker requesting wallet connection instead of just a public address is a major red flag. The report details that the same malicious template is repackaged under different names. It also mentions a $500 scam kit advertised on cybercrime forums that creates fake token presales, scans visitor wallets for valuable assets, and attempts to steal secret recovery phrases by offering a bonus. The article advises users who connected only a wallet to revoke the site's permissions. Those who signed suspicious transactions should check activity and move funds to a new wallet if compromised. Anyone who entered a recovery phrase or private key should assume the wallet is breached.

cryptonews.ru20 min fa

Wallet Connection Prompts Are a Sign of a Fake AML Check Website

cryptonews.ru20 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片