One day before the U.S. raid on Iran, 12 Polymarket accounts placed precise bets. Is "Trump insider trading" making a comeback?

On the eve of the U.S. airstrike on Iran, a series of unusual bets appeared on the prediction market Polymarket, sparking heightened suspicion of insider information leaks within the government.

According to the Financial Times, 12 suspicious accounts accumulated positions days before the airstrike, betting a total of about $67,000 and ultimately making a profit of $330,000.

About half of these bets were placed within six hours before the strike, raising strong doubts about the timing’s precision. This event quickly prompted U.S. lawmakers to call for legislation and led regulators to issue public statements.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a notice this Wednesday, stating it has full enforcement authority over illegal trading activities in prediction markets, including improper use of confidential information, fraud, and market manipulation.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on Sunday that allowing bets on military actions is “absolutely absurd,” and announced plans to “introduce legislation to ban it as soon as possible.”

12 accounts, precise timing, $330,000 profit

The Financial Times analyzed and identified these suspicious accounts through two steps.

First, by comparing with recent political betting markets, they identified bets with unusually high amounts.

Second, they filtered these high-stakes bets, focusing on accounts that only bet on Iran-related markets, did not close positions early, and had perfect win rates.

Among the 13 wallets finally identified, 12 opened new accounts just days before the airstrike, mainly placing bets within 24 hours prior, directly betting on “an attack happening within a day.”

Matt Saincome, CEO of financial data provider Unusual Whales, said:

“When a new wallet places a large bet on a single issue, you have to question its motive. We have seen misjudgments before… but this strongly suggests it could be an insider.”

Patterns are not isolated; cases involving Maduro and Israel emerge successively

In early January, during the U.S. detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, six accounts were established between December 30 and January 2, after which there was no further activity. They only bet on Venezuela-related topics, ultimately turning an initial $9,807 into $134,000 in profit.

Another account, established slightly earlier, invested $32,000 in Maduro-related markets and gained up to $404,200. Before Maduro’s arrest operation was launched, the implied probability of his resignation remained low at around 9%.

Regarding Israel, the Financial Times previously identified eight accounts that made unusually large bets, betting against the odds on Israel Defense Forces taking action soon, with total profits of $405,000.

However, the report also notes that not all suspicious bets come from insiders. Earlier this month, several traders claimed to have identified an “insider player” betting on the U.S. striking Iran before February 9, with a mere 2.5% odds, ultimately losing nearly $100,000.

The paradox of anonymity and blockchain transparency

Polymarket’s operational model is at the heart of this controversy. The platform does not require real-name registration in most jurisdictions, and all transactions are settled with cryptocurrencies, providing a significant degree of anonymity for users.

However, on the other hand, all trades and payouts on Polymarket are processed via blockchain, meaning each transaction can be traced back to a single anonymous wallet and is publicly visible to regulators and other traders. This transparency has led many users to actively track potential insiders.

The Financial Times also discovered another anomaly: previously, markets on “Will the U.S. strike Iran earlier than February?” showed decreasing implied probabilities as the deadline approached. Yet, about 20 hours before the airstrike, the implied probability suddenly spiked significantly.

Regulatory gray area and legal disputes

In the U.S., prediction markets are considered financial derivatives and are regulated by the CFTC. Since one of the traditional functions of futures markets is hedging business risks, the CFTC generally permits “informed trading.”

However, Sidley law firm partner Peter Malyshev pointed out that “trading based on improperly obtained information from others” is legally a violation.

He also stated that government employees using information acquired during their official duties to place bets would also constitute trading based on “material nonpublic information.”

The high confidentiality of military operations makes this issue particularly tricky. Compared to general political information, leaking military intelligence could directly compromise the element of surprise, with potentially far-reaching consequences. As prediction markets continue to grow, defining the boundaries between market openness and national security has become an unavoidable core issue for regulators.

Risk warning and disclaimer

Market risks are inherent; invest cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not consider individual users’ specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should determine whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions herein are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investment is at your own risk.