How prediction markets raise insider trading and credit risks

cointelegraphОпубликовано 2025-12-09Обновлено 2025-12-09

Введение

Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are experiencing significant growth, with billions in trading volume, but face scrutiny over ethical and financial risks. Concerns include insider trading, as seen in a manipulated map edit during the Russo-Ukrainian War that influenced a Polymarket bet resolution, and wash trading, which comprised up to 60% of volume on Polymarket. Regulators, including the CFTC, have granted some approvals, but states are challenging these platforms over gambling classifications. Analysts warn that easy access and gamified interfaces could lead to credit overextension and loan defaults, introducing new risks for lenders and consumers.

Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are growing, generating billions of dollars in volume. But some observers are concerned about the ethical problems and potential credit risks posed by major prediction betting platforms.

Last week, Polymarket saw a notional volume of over $1.2 billion, according to Dune Analytics. Media giant CNBC has entered into a partnership with prediction market Kalshi to integrate prediction data in its TV, digital and subscription platforms.

On the back of this success, Kalshi co-founder Tarek Mansour has mentioned creating “a tradable asset out of any difference in opinion,” stating that prediction markets could soon surpass the stock market in size.

Regulators in some jurisdictions are taking efforts to curb their activities. Concerns over wash and insider trading have surfaced in recent weeks, and some analysts believe it’s making credit risks worse.

Weekly volumes on Polymarket are frequently over $1 billion. Source: Dune

Russo-Ukrainian War map altered, prediction market bet resolved

Prediction markets have opened up a range of possibilities for setting wagers on events. These can range from a specific element of a sports match to the outcome of a war. In some instances, this has led to insider manipulation to resolve a market in a certain way.

This is what may have happened in November, when the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) announced an unauthorized edit to its map of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The map is used by media organizations worldwide to track changes to frontline positions.

The edit concerned the ISW’s map of Myrnohrad, where Ukrainian troops have been defending the city against the Russian Pokrovsk offensive since July 2024. The unauthorized change to the map of the city coincided with the resolution of a bet on Polymarket, “Will Russia capture Myrnohrad by...” and then a series of dates.

The market resolution was triggered if Russia held an intersection between two streets, Vatutina Vulytsya and Puhachova Vulytsya. According to 404 Media, on Nov. 15, someone edited the map to show Russian troops had taken the intersection. Just minutes after the market resolved, the edit disappeared.


The updated Nov. 17 ISW map did not show that Russian forces controlled the intersection. Source: ISW, 404

The ISW announced the unapproved edit on Nov. 17. It noted that, “The map does not represent battlefield changes in real-time, and all adjustments made during our workday are subject to review and change over the course of the day.”

In this instance, not only was insider knowledge allegedly used to manipulate data, but that manipulation could have affected the public perception of an ongoing violent conflict.

Other examples have also surfaced. Pseudonymous trader AlphaRaccoo netted over $1 million in bets relating to Google search result rankings. He also reportedly made $150,000 by predicting the exact day Google would launch a new version of its Gemini AI model.

Jeong Haeju, a senior software engineer at Meta, said, “He’s a Google insider milking Polymarket for quick money. It’s one of the wildest things I’ve seen on the platform.”

AlphaRaccoon’s betting history. Source: Jeong Haeju

Allegations of manipulation aren’t limited to insider trading. A November report from researchers at the Columbia Business School found that wash trading — i.e., “buying and selling securities without taking a net position, for the purpose of artificially inflating recorded volume” — accounted for 60% of volume on Polymarket in December 2024.

Related: Polymarket rife with ‘artificial trading,’ Columbia University researchers find

This fell substantially but rose to nearly 20% of total volume by October 2025 and has comprised an average of 25% of all trading on Polymarket.

Wash trading “doesn’t add liquidity or information to the market,” said Yash Kanoria, a professor at Columbia University’s business school. This is especially important, given claims that prediction markets provide more accurate and dynamic analyses of a situation.

Jason Wingard, a distinguished visiting professor at Harvard University and executive chairman of the Education Board, wrote that prediction markets create a “‘truth signal’ that moves faster than polls, pundits, or official reports. When thousands of people are willing to lose money on what they think will happen, the result is a dynamic forecast of political outcomes, corporate decisions, economic trends, and cultural shifts.”

Regulation battles as prediction markets ponder new assets

Prediction platforms have won important regulatory approvals this year. In November, Polymarket secured regulatory approval from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to operate an intermediated trading platform.

Polymarket founder and CEO Shayne Coplan said, “This approval allows us to operate in a way that reflects the maturity and transparency that the US regulatory framework demands.”

Kalshi is also regulated by the CFTC, meaning that, on paper, it should be allowed to operate in all 50 states.

However, state regulators have taken issue with these platforms. Kalshi is currently facing legal battles with gaming regulators in Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and Ohio over whether its platform constitutes a gambling enterprise.

Others see the potential for risks to the financial and credit systems. Bank of America analysts wrote, “Easy access and gamified interfaces encourage frequent and impulsive wagers, which can lead to overextension of credit and rising loan defaults.”

“For investors this convergence of entertainment and speculative finance signals heightened behavioral risk that could pressure credit quality, increase delinquencies, and impact earnings for issuers and subprime lenders.”

They said these risks could pressure credit quality and that online betting markets “introduce a new risk for lenders, one that they have not had to deal with historically and underwriting models may need to be adapted.”

The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection has served cease-and-desist orders to Robinhood, Kalshi and Crypto.com. It stated that, in addition to lacking proper gambling licenses, the platforms pose “a serious risk to consumers who may not realize that wagers placed on these illegal platforms offer no protections for their money or information.”

Mansour’s plan to turn “any difference in opinion” into a tradable asset may sound novel, but betting platforms will first have to face regulatory scrutiny and a host of ethical issues.

Magazine: 6 reasons Jack Dorsey is definitely Satoshi... and 5 reasons he’s not


Похожее

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

**Summary:** A growing "anti-college" movement is gaining traction among elite circles in Silicon Valley, challenging the traditional value of a four-year university degree. Proponents argue that college has become an expensive, slow, and increasingly irrelevant waste of time, especially in the fast-paced tech world where opportunities pass by quickly. The movement is led by figures like billionaire Peter Thiel, who criticizes universities for high costs, ideological indoctrination, and stifling true innovation. His "Thiel Fellowship" pays young people to drop out and pursue ventures. Companies like Palantir Technologies (co-founded by Thiel) fuel this trend with programs like the "Meritocracy Fellowship," which offers high school graduates paid internships as an alternative to immediate college enrollment, promising a practical "Palantir Degree." Key drivers include: 1. **Economics:** Skyrocketing student debt versus the allure of immediate, high-paying tech jobs or startup funding. 2. **Technology:** AI and online tools lowering barriers to self-education and product development, making formal instruction seem inefficient. 3. **Culture:** A backlash against perceived "woke" ideology and DEI policies in universities, coupled with a belief that these institutions suppress meritocracy and masculine drive. The movement is notably male-dominated. Critics, like economist David Deming, warn against overgeneralizing from dropout success stories (survivorship bias). He emphasizes that genuine autodidacts are rare, corporate training is narrowly focused, and the "college wage premium" remains high for most people. University liberal arts education, he argues, builds adaptable problem-solving skills and broad perspectives. The debate highlights a deeper crisis in education. The core model of the modern university appears increasingly mismatched with the speed of the information age. The movement signals a shift in the locus of learning from institutional "education" to personal, active "learning" powered by the internet and AI. Ultimately, this may not mean the end of university, but rather a painful evolution. The future likely holds more hybrid, personalized, and lifelong learning pathways. The central question becomes: in a world changing faster than any curriculum, how do we best learn?

marsbit5 мин. назад

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

marsbit5 мин. назад

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

The commercialization of generative AI is facing a critical inflection point as a potential price war looms. According to The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI is considering a significant cut to its token fees to compete with rival Anthropic, signaling a shift from a growth-at-all-costs model focused on token consumption. This move comes as both companies, reportedly losing billions on compute, prepare for IPOs, and as enterprise customers face "bill shock" from switching to usage-based token billing. Reports indicate poor ROI, with one analysis finding only 18 cents of every dollar spent on AI tokens generates user-facing value. The industry's initial phases—from flat-rate subscriptions to aggressive subsidies—have given way to a reckoning with real costs. Analysts debate the future: some predict a bifurcation between premium, high-cost models for complex tasks and cheaper alternatives for routine work, while others believe overall spending will still rise as agentic AI increases tokens per task. Notably, Chinese model DeepSeek's low-cost API is gaining traction with U.S. enterprises, adding competitive pressure. The core challenge is redefining value beyond token volume ("tokenmaxxing") toward measurable productivity ("valuemaxxing"), as the entire AI value chain, from cloud providers to chipmakers, feels the ripple effects of unsustainable pricing.

marsbit9 мин. назад

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

marsbit9 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片