Polymarket Bets Spark Insider Trading Concerns

TheNewsCryptoОпубліковано о 2026-02-27Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-27

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Bitcoin prices declined 13% this week, reversing the recent rebound and signaling a likely transition into the later stages of a bear market. Key on-chain metrics deteriorated, with the short-term holder cost basis falling below the Realized Price—a pattern last seen in early 2022, characteristic of bear market maturity. The rally to ~$82k proved to be a bear market bounce, as evidenced by the 90-day realized profit/loss ratio failing to sustain above the bullish threshold of 2. Daily realized losses surged to $1.35B, including significant selling from long-term holders who accumulated near cycle tops, indicating ongoing supply redistribution. Price was rejected almost precisely at the aggregate US spot ETF cost basis of ~$83k, turning that level into resistance and leaving the average ETF investor underwater again. Spot market selling pressure intensified, with the 7-day volume delta turning significantly negative to its weakest level since February. While a major long liquidation event cleared over $400M in leverage, spot demand has not yet stepped in to absorb the resulting supply. Options markets continue pricing in higher future volatility (elevated volatility risk premium) and maintain a skew toward put options, reflecting persistent demand for downside protection, though not yet panic. Overall, market structure remains fragile. Sustained recovery likely requires a reclaim of the ETF cost basis, a shift back to positive spot demand, and a slowdown in realized loss-taking. Until then, the market risks further downside or extended consolidation within the broader bear trend.

Foresight News1 год тому

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Foresight News1 год тому

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight News1 год тому

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight News1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片