The alleged insider trading incident involving a Green Beret, who made a $400,000 bet on a raid in Venezuela, may be just the tip of the iceberg. A recent analysis by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective (ACDC) has uncovered a disturbing pattern of unusually high win rates in low-probability bets related to military and defense outcomes on Polymarket.
The study, which examined over 435,000 markets and $54.4 billion in cumulative volume from January 2021 to mid-March 2026, found that these longshot bets succeed at rates that are difficult to explain by skill or luck alone. In some cases, success rates have exceeded 50%, significantly higher than the typical 14% success rate for such bets across political markets. The researchers suggest that markets tied to government policies, such as military and defense, are more susceptible to information asymmetries, including insider trading or specialized knowledge.
This creates an environment where a small group of informed traders can consistently outperform others, not just by reacting faster, but by having access to more information. Polymarket has emphasized its market surveillance teams and cooperation with the Department of Justice on the Venezuela case, and prohibits trading on confidential knowledge on its platform. However, the ACDC report's findings add to a growing body of research that points to a more systemic issue. A working paper from London Business School and Yale found that roughly 3% of traders account for most price discovery on Polymarket, while separate analysis from blockchain analytics firm Solidus Labs showed that profits are even more concentrated, with fewer than 1% of wallets capturing about half of all gains.
The ACDC report examines the June 2025 U.S. strikes on Iran as a case study, where 19 longshot bets totaling $164,292 were placed across contracts that ultimately resolved YES, resulting in profits of about $1.8 million for eight wallets. The report suggests that some participants may be operating with information advantages that others do not have, and recommends measures such as identity verification, conditional payouts on suspicious wagers, and restrictions on markets whose outcomes are decided by small groups. The report concludes by calling for an evidence-informed debate about whether the public should be betting on these outcomes at all, highlighting the need for greater transparency and regulation in the industry.