On-chain sleuths at Bubblemaps say a small cluster of Polymarket accounts pulled off another big payday this week — banking roughly $600,000 by correctly betting that the U.S. and Iran would agree to a ceasefire, and doing so just before the outcome became public.
What happened
- Bubblemaps, an analytics firm that tracks on-chain trades, identified a cluster of accounts that netted about $611,000 on Tuesday after former President Trump’s conditional ceasefire announcement. The accounts — now known on Polymarket as “djijaij83jdo4jdlwjflsg,” “Elonfax89678,” and “Skoobidoobnj” — reportedly changed their handles after the wins.
- The same cluster has a history of well-timed military-market bets. In late February, Bubblemaps says the group made roughly $1.2 million on markets tied to Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran, largely by wagering on strike outcomes at the right moment.
- Not every bet hit: the cluster collectively lost just under $50,000 on markets forecasting a ceasefire before March 31. Many of the large gains came from markets resolving in windows such as “prior to April 7” and “prior to April 15.”
Bubblemaps’ take
Bubblemaps cautioned against leaping to conclusions about insider trading. “This cluster has been betting and winning on military markets since 2024 using multiple accounts, some recently created, some older,” a firm representative told Decrypt, adding that the accounts “predicted multiple independent surprise military operations.” But they also stressed limits to what on-chain data can prove: “People can only wager the capital they have. We don't know the income or net worth of individuals trading on Polymarket… We can only definitively say that these bets were large and well-timed.”
That nuance hasn’t stopped broader scrutiny. Bubblemaps itself noted the cluster’s record of correctly calling surprise attacks, saying that pattern “suggests they may have access to better information than most,” while also acknowledging their win rate is not perfect.
Why this matters for crypto, markets and regulators
Prediction markets like Polymarket sit at the intersection of crypto transparency and legal ambiguity. On-chain visibility makes it easier for analytics firms to flag suspicious clusters, but it doesn’t automatically reveal whether traders acted on privileged government intelligence — a key legal and ethical distinction.
The revelation comes amid a wave of regulators and platforms trying to stem insider profiteering:
- California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order banning political appointees and people associated with them from trading on prediction markets using inside information.
- Platforms have also been reacting: Polymarket and Kalshi moved last month to tighten responses to suspected insider trading. Kalshi, for example, says it has implemented preemptive screening to block politicians from trading on markets tied to themselves.
- High-profile past incidents have raised alarms: January’s well-timed bets on the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro produced a more than $430,000 win and subsequent scrutiny; two Israelis were later arrested for allegedly using military secrets to trade. Kalshi also fined and suspended a former employee of a YouTuber last month for profiting with inside information; the employee was later fired.
Industry groups weigh in
The Coalition for Prediction Markets — representing Kalshi, Coinbase and Robinhood (but not Polymarket) — warned that trading on classified or material non-public information is illegal and urged maintaining prediction-market activity within U.S.-regulated venues with KYC and monitoring guardrails. “We must draw a bright line between U.S.-based, subject to U.S. regulation companies and unregulated ones where the scandals are happening,” the coalition told Decrypt.
What’s next
Bubblemaps’ report adds another data point to an ongoing debate: how to balance the openness and real-time insight of crypto-native prediction markets with the need to prevent illicit information flows and preserve market integrity. On-chain tools can surface suspicious patterns quickly, but proving criminal insider trading will likely require more than transaction data — including traditional investigations and cooperation from platforms and regulators.
Editor’s note: This story was updated after publication to include a statement from the Coalition for Prediction Markets.
Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
