Polymarket Bettors Send Death Threats to Reporter Over $14M Missile Prediction Market - Crypto Economy

TL;DR

• Polymarket bettors threatened a journalist to manipulate his coverage of a missile strike.
• Market rules excluded interceptions, creating financial incentives to intimidate reporters.
• Senators proposed legislation banning betting on assassinations and wars after the incident.

Emanuel Fabian, military correspondent for The Times of Israel, documented a disturbing experience: bettors on Polymarket sent him dozens of threatening messages after reporting on an Iranian missile strike on March 10. Messages came from individuals who had wagered millions of dollars into a prediction contract titled “Iran strikes Israel on…?”. Their goal was straightforward: pressure him to alter his coverage, specifically to claim the projectile had been intercepted rather than hit an open area near Beit Shemesh.

Fabian received intimidating communications through email, social media platforms, and messaging applications. Some senders explicitly threatened to “finish” him if he refused to modify his article. The reporter declined to yield to pressure, explaining that his reporting relied on direct statements from Israeli military rescue services and official sources. After documenting all threatening exchanges, Fabian filed a formal police report and provided investigators with the communications.

The prediction contract generating attacks contained over $14 million in wagers. Under market rules, the contract would resolve “yes” only if Iran executed a missile, drone, or air strike against Israeli territory on that specific date. An additional clause stipulated that intercepted projectiles would not qualify for resolution. That technical distinction motivated the intimidation campaign: if the report stated interception, bettors who wagered on “no” would pocket enormous sums.

Fabian warned publicly about implications: prediction markets begin interfering directly with journalism. Operators can engineer economic incentives to distort information, especially regarding national security and armed conflict. Polymarket responded by banning the accounts responsible and stated it would share user data with authorities. The platform characterized threats as direct violations of its terms of service.

Washington Advances Legislation to Restrict Wagers on War and Deaths

The incident accelerated legislative mobilization in Washington. Senator Adam Schiff and Representative Mike Levin introduced the “Death Bets Act”, legislation that would prohibit prediction markets linked to war, assassinations, or deaths. Levin stated publicly: “Betting on war and death should be illegal.” Separately, Senator Chris Murphy proposed banning contracts related to government actions like military strikes, after blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps identified multiple wallets that collectively earned roughly $1 million betting the United States would attack Iran shortly before strikes occurred.

Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket experienced accelerated expansion, with billions flowing into contracts on elections, policy decisions, and geopolitical developments. February 2026 recorded extraordinary trading volumes: Kalshi processed approximately $10.4 billion while Polymarket executed $7.9 billion according to The Block data. Both platforms advance toward seven consecutive months reaching new highs, projecting around $20 billion combined.


Polymarket removed a market allowing wagers on nuclear detonation following online criticism. Kalshi settled a contract on Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s potential removal at pre-death prices following his assassination in February, citing a “death carveout.” Cases demonstrate growing tensions between trading volumes and ethical responsibility.

The Fabian episode exposes an uncomfortable reality: prediction markets can generate pressure on information sources, creating perverse incentives prioritizing profits over factual accuracy. Although Polymarket banned individual accounts, the market architecture enabled manipulation attempts initially

Legislators now seek broad prohibitions, not just on specific contracts but on entire categories of wagers where money can finance disinformation campaigns. The intersection between financial incentives and reporting integrity demands regulatory attention before threats escalate further.