The alleged $400,000 insider bet by a Green Beret on a Venezuela raid initially seemed like an isolated incident. However, a new report by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective (ACDC) suggests it may be just the tip of the iceberg.
The nonprofit research group analyzed over 435,000 settled Polymarket contracts from January 2021 to mid-March 2026, with a cumulative volume of $54.4 billion, and found that low-probability bets on military and defense outcomes have success rates that are difficult to explain by skill or luck alone. Typically, such 'longshot' bets succeed around 14% of the time across political markets, but in military-linked contracts, success rates have exceeded 50% in some cases. The authors of the report note that markets related to government policies, such as military and defense and foreign affairs, are harder to forecast using public information alone, making them more susceptible to information asymmetries, including insider trading or specialized knowledge. This creates conditions where a small group can consistently outperform others, not just by reacting faster, but by possessing more information.
The report's findings add to a growing body of research pointing in the same direction, including a working paper from London Business School and Yale that found roughly 3% of traders account for most price discovery on Polymarket. 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, with eight wallets sharing about $1.8 million in profits.
The pattern extends beyond a single event, with winning longshot bets outnumbering losing ones in five of the six two-hour windows before market resolution, contrary to what market prices imply. The report suggests that some participants may be operating with information advantages that others do not have, and recommends identity verification for bettors, conditional payouts on suspicious wagers, restrictions on markets whose outcomes are decided by small groups, and limits on how granular contracts can become.
Ultimately, the report calls for 'an evidence-informed debate about whether the public should be betting on these outcomes at all.'