The alleged $400,000 insider bet by a Green Beret on a Venezuelan raid, initially perceived as an isolated incident, may be just the tip of the iceberg. A comprehensive analysis by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective, covering over 435,000 markets and $54.4 billion in cumulative volume from January 2021 to mid-March 2026, reveals that low-probability bets on military and defense outcomes have success rates that defy explanation by skill or luck alone, with some cases reaching success rates of over 50%, far exceeding the typical 14% success rate for longshot bets in political markets. The authors suggest that markets tied to government policies, such as military and defense, are more susceptible to information asymmetries, including insider trading or specialized knowledge, creating an environment where a small group can consistently outperform others due to their access to information rather than reaction speed. Polymarket emphasizes its market surveillance and cooperation with the Department of Justice, prohibiting trading on confidential knowledge.
The report's findings align with existing research indicating that roughly 3% of traders are responsible for most price discovery on Polymarket, and fewer than 1% of wallets capture 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 in the hours leading up to the strike, with eight wallets sharing about $1.8 million in profits.
The pattern of well-timed, large bets on the outcome, despite the operation being designed to be unreadable from the outside, suggests that some participants may have operated with information advantages. The consistency of such patterns, especially in markets tied to military decisions, implies that some traders may be leveraging information not available to others.
The report recommends identity verification for bettors, conditional payouts on suspicious wagers, restrictions on markets decided by small groups, and limits on contract granularity. Ultimately, it calls for an evidence-informed debate on whether the public should be betting on these outcomes at all.