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 and $54.4 billion in cumulative volume from January 2021 to mid-March 2026.
The findings indicate that low-probability bets on military and defense outcomes have success rates that are difficult to explain by skill or luck alone, with some cases reaching over 50%. Typically, such 'longshot' bets succeed around 14% of the time across political markets. The report highlights that markets tied to specific government policies, such as military and defense, are particularly susceptible to information asymmetries, including insider trading or specialized knowledge. This creates an environment where a small group of traders can consistently outperform others, not just by reacting faster, but by possessing more information.
Polymarket emphasizes its market surveillance and cooperation with the Department of Justice on the Venezuela case, noting that trading on confidential knowledge is prohibited. The ACDC report builds upon existing research indicating that roughly 3% of traders drive most price discovery on Polymarket, with fewer than 1% of wallets capturing about half of all gains.
The 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, resulting in eight wallets sharing about $1.8 million in profits. Despite the Pentagon's efforts to keep the operation secret, a small number of traders placed large, well-timed bets on the outcome. The pattern of winning longshot bets outnumbering losing ones in the two-hour windows before market resolution, particularly in markets tied to military decisions, suggests some participants may have information advantages.
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 a debate on whether the public should be allowed to bet on these outcomes at all.