The alleged $400,000 insider bet by a Green Beret on a Venezuela raid initially appeared to be an isolated incident. However, a new report suggests it may be merely the tip of the iceberg. The Anti-Corruption Data Collective, a nonprofit research organization, conducted an exhaustive analysis of over 435,000 settled Polymarket contracts between January 2021 and mid-March 2026, encompassing $54.4 billion in cumulative volume.
The findings indicate that low-probability wagers on military and defense outcomes yield success rates that defy explanation by skill or chance alone. Typically, such 'longshot' bets succeed around 14% of the time across political markets. In contrast, military-linked contracts have seen success rates exceed 50% in certain instances. The authors of the report noted that markets tied to specific government policies, including military and defense and foreign affairs, are inherently more challenging to predict using publicly available information.
This makes them more vulnerable to information asymmetries, including insider trading or specialized knowledge. In these markets, the disparity between informed and uninformed traders may be most pronounced, creating an environment in which a small group can consistently outperform others, not merely by reacting more quickly but by possessing superior knowledge. Polymarket, for its part, emphasizes its market surveillance teams and cooperation with the Department of Justice regarding the Venezuela case.
Trading on confidential information is strictly prohibited on the platform, as it is on Kalshi. The report's findings contribute to a growing body of research pointing in the same direction. A working paper from the London Business School and Yale discovered that approximately 3% of traders account for the majority of price discovery on Polymarket.
Separate analysis by the blockchain analytics firm Solidus Labs revealed that profits are even more concentrated, with fewer than 1% of wallets capturing roughly half of all gains. The ACDC report's unique contribution lies in suggesting the potential source of this edge.
The report examines the June 2025 U.S. strikes on Iran as a case study. Polymarket had listed several date-specific contracts concerning the likelihood of a strike.
Contracts tied to June 19 and June 20 expired without incident, with no longshot bets winning. The strike occurred at 18:40 ET on June 21. In the hours leading up to the event, 19 longshot bets totaling $164,292 were placed across contracts that ultimately resolved in the affirmative. Eight wallets shared approximately $1.8 million in profits, with one wallet taking nearly $500,000.
The Pentagon had deliberately designed the operation to be opaque from the outside, utilizing decoy bombers and long-range stealth aircraft to avoid detection. Despite these efforts, a small number of traders placed large, well-timed wagers on the outcome. This pattern extends beyond a single event. Across Polymarket's military and defense category, the report found that in five of the six two-hour windows preceding market resolution, winning longshot bets outnumbered losing ones, contrary to what market prices would imply.
While longshot bets can outperform due to various reasons, including mispricing or shifts in public expectations, the consistency of these patterns, particularly in markets tied to military decisions, suggests that some participants may be operating with information advantages not available to others. As a nonprofit research group funded through the Fund for Constitutional Government, ACDC has no surveillance product to sell, unlike Solidus Labs, whose recent Polymarket analysis also serves as a marketing case for the platform it licenses to Kalshi. ACDC's recommendations include implementing identity verification for bettors, conditional payouts on suspicious wagers, restrictions on markets whose outcomes are decided by small groups, and limits on the granularity of contracts.
The report's conclusion goes further, advocating for 'an evidence-informed debate about whether the public should be betting on these outcomes at all.'