Polymarket Bets Spark Insider Trading Concerns

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-02-27Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-27

Introduzione

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

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit16 min fa

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit16 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片