Suspected insider accounts net $2.4 million on Polymarket Iran war bets with 98% win rate
A cluster of nine anonymous accounts on Polymarket has raked in more than $2.4 million by betting almost exclusively on the specific dates of U.S. military actions in the war with Iran — posting a staggering 98% win rate across over 80 wagers. The findings, first reported by CBS News’ 60 Minutes and uncovered by data analytics firm Bubblemaps, have ignited fresh fears that prediction markets are becoming a playground for insider trading.
According to Nicolas Vaiman, co-founder and CEO of Bubblemaps, the pattern is so extreme that luck alone cannot explain the results. The accounts placed winning bets on the first U.S. strikes, the removal of Iran’s supreme leader, and the announcement of a ceasefire — often when the odds of those events were low. “This might be the most insane pattern we have found on Polymarket so far,” Vaiman told 60 Minutes.
Polymarket, the largest prediction market platform, responded by stating that its systems identify suspicious activity and that it cooperates with law enforcement. But the scandal raises urgent questions: Is the platform doing enough to police its own users? And what happens when the stakes involve war?
How the trades worked
The nine accounts were linked by Bubblemaps using on-chain data analysis. Each account bet on the same events, with near-perfect timing. Unlike traditional financial markets, Polymarket is fully transparent — every trade is recorded on the blockchain. But traders themselves remain anonymous, making it difficult to identify who is behind the accounts without a subpoena.
The accounts had a win rate of 98%, compared to the typical retail trader who wins roughly 50-55% of bets. The sheer improbability of that success rate, combined with the specificity of the wagers, has led investigators to suspect that the traders had access to nonpublic information — possibly from within the U.S. military or intelligence community.
A new kind of insider trading
Prediction markets have exploded in popularity over the past year. More than $1 billion has been staked online in 2026 on military decisions and outcomes alone, according to data cited by CBS News. The ability to bet on war has created an entirely new category of insider trading — one that regulators are only beginning to understand.
Rob Schwartz, a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis who spent 13 years at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), described the phenomenon as “a new kind of insider trading.” He noted that while traditional insider trading involves stocks or bonds, the same principle applies to betting on secret military operations or diplomatic breakthroughs.
The CFTC does not currently regulate prediction markets in the same way it regulates futures or options. But that may be changing. The Department of Justice has already begun prosecuting cases. Last month, Army Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke was indicted for allegedly using classified information to place bets on a special operations mission to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Van Dyke pleaded not guilty, but the case has become a bellwether for how the legal system will treat insider trading on prediction markets.
Polymarket’s response
In a statement to 60 Minutes, Polymarket said: “When our systems identify suspicious activity, we act — including through referrals to law enforcement and cooperation with investigations. Insider trading is not welcome on Polymarket, and those who attempt it will be identified.”
The platform has not commented on the specific Bubblemaps findings. However, the incident has put Polymarket under intense scrutiny, especially as it seeks to expand its user base and cement its position as the go-to platform for event-based trading.
The paradox of transparency and anonymity
One of the most striking features of Polymarket is that it operates on a public blockchain. Every trade, every wallet address, and every payout is visible to anyone with an internet connection. That transparency allowed Bubblemaps to identify the suspicious accounts in the first place.
But the same transparency reveals a fundamental paradox: while the data is public, the identities behind the wallets are not. This makes it easy for insiders — whether they are government employees, corporate executives, or military personnel — to place bets without being discovered, as long as they use VPNs or other anonymizing tools.
According to the CBS News report, the U.S. prohibits military bets on platforms like Polymarket, but users can easily circumvent the rules with a $2-per-month VPN. That is allegedly how Van Dyke made his wagers. The Justice Department says he placed a series of bets totaling roughly $34,000, including half a dozen on the day before the raid, and netted more than $400,000.
Prediction markets go mainstream
While the insider trading scandal has dominated headlines, Polymarket is also expanding rapidly into legal, regulated markets — particularly in sports. The platform now offers trading on everything from MLB games to NBA playoffs to major golf tournaments.
This week, Polymarket launched a new promotion offering a $50 sign-up bonus for new users who deposit $20. The offer is tied to major sporting events, including Game 7 of the Cavaliers vs. Pistons series, the final round of the PGA Championship, and Sunday’s MLB slate. The promotion reflects a broader push to attract mainstream sports bettors to the prediction market model.
For example, in a recent Yankees vs. Mets Subway Series matchup, Polymarket priced the Mets at a 52% win probability and the Yankees at 49%, reflecting a tightly contested market. Similarly, in the Cavaliers vs. Pistons Game 7, the Pistons were given a 64% probability of winning, based on advanced metrics such as net rating and rebounding rate.
But the line between sports betting and event-based trading is blurring. As prediction markets grow, so do the risks. The same platform that hosts a market on who will win the NBA Finals also hosts markets on whether a ceasefire will be announced in Gaza or whether a military coup will occur in a foreign country.
The price of information
The ethical concerns are not limited to national security. In traditional financial markets, insider trading is illegal because it undermines the fairness and integrity of the market. The same logic applies to prediction markets: if a trader has access to nonpublic information, they have an unfair advantage over everyone else.
But in the world of prediction markets, the line between “insider information” and “expert analysis” can be blurry. A journalist covering the war in Ukraine, for example, might have access to sources that give them an edge. A government employee might hear a rumor about a pending announcement. At what point does informed speculation become illegal insider trading?
Regulators are grappling with these questions. The CFTC has not yet issued formal guidance on prediction markets, but the Van Dyke case and the Bubblemaps findings are likely to accelerate the push for regulation.
What this changes
The $2.4 million war bet scandal is a turning point for Polymarket and the broader prediction market industry. It demonstrates, in stark terms, that the platform can be weaponized by those with access to confidential information. And it shows that the current system of self-policing — relying on internal detection tools and voluntary cooperation with law enforcement — may not be enough.
Going forward, we can expect increased scrutiny from regulators, lawmakers, and the public. Calls for stricter know-your-customer (KYC) requirements will grow louder. The platform may be forced to require identity verification for all users, especially for those trading on sensitive events like military actions. Trading on war-related events may be restricted or banned entirely.
At the same time, the scandal may also drive innovation. Blockchain analytics firms like Bubblemaps are proving that suspicious patterns can be detected, even when identities are hidden. If Polymarket adopts more robust detection tools and cooperates more aggressively with law enforcement, it could restore some trust.
But the genie is out of the bottle. Prediction markets have proven that they can move billions of dollars, influence public perception, and — as this case shows — be exploited by bad actors. The question is not whether they will be regulated, but how quickly and how thoroughly.
A wider trend
This incident is part of a broader trend of information-based trading taking center stage in the financial world. As markets become more event-driven, the value of nonpublic information grows. Whether it’s a war, a central bank decision, or a corporate merger, the person who knows first can make a fortune.
The parallel with Donald Trump’s recent legal maneuvers is instructive. In a separate development, Trump is reportedly near a — a case that hinges on access to confidential financial information. The same dynamics are at play: information asymmetry creates opportunities for profit for those who have it.
Meanwhile, in the sports world, prediction markets are becoming a legitimate alternative to traditional sportsbooks. The MLB trades and NBA playoffs are now routinely traded on Polymarket, with odds that often mirror those found at regulated sportsbooks. But as the scandal shows, the line between sports and serious geopolitical events is very thin on these platforms.
Conclusion
The Polymarket insider trading scandal is a wake-up call for the entire prediction market ecosystem. The findings from Bubblemaps are not just a story about nine anonymous accounts — they raise fundamental questions about fairness, security, and the role of regulation in a world where anyone can bet on anything, including war.
For now, Polymarket is in damage-control mode. The platform has pledged to cooperate with investigations and to identify those responsible. But for many observers, the cat-and-mouse game between insiders and regulators is just beginning. The $2.4 million war bet is not an anomaly — it may be the first of many such cases to come.
As the platform expands into sports and other mainstream markets, the pressure to clean up its act will only intensify. Users, regulators, and the public will be watching closely to see whether Polymarket can evolve into a trusted marketplace — or whether it will remain a digital Wild West where insiders can profit at the expense of everyone else.
Comments