Bloomberg’s Polymarket insider trading investigation dismissed as well-timed trades

Pseudonymous analyst Car has written a rebuttal to the Bloomberg report on alleged insider trading that flagged specific wallets and labeled tens of millions in trading volume as suspicious.

Car’s thread highlighted what he says are several problems with Bloomberg’s methodology. The analyst stated that the publication overstated winnings and misread on-chain data to build a case that doesn’t hold up.

What did Car say is wrong about Bloomberg’s report?

Car stated that the flaws in Bloomberg’s report started from relying on data from Polysights, a blockchain analytics tool that flags $45 million in volume on Trump-related markets as suspicious and 34,225 wallets as possible insiders.

“Do Bloomberg journalists think someone can have insider information about Argentina winning the World Cup?” Car wrote on X, pointing out the absurdity of treating algorithmic flags as proof of wrongdoing.

Car also questioned how Bloomberg arrived at the $1.5 million figure. Polymarket’s own position leaderboard showed the top winner on the relevant contract made $1.1 million, and the wallet Bloomberg tracked never appeared at that level.

Car traced the wallet Bloomberg identified in its report and found that the account won “a couple hundred thousand” as opposed to the $1.5 million the report claimed.

The account, according to Car, had a history of placing large bets on elections and sports, which does not necessarily allude to someone acting on classified intelligence.

Car wrote, “Even the most credible newspapers are extremely bad at covering supposed insiders or suspicious wallets on Polymarket,” adding, “I know from experience insider trading on Polymarket is not a thing on the scale the media makes it seem.”

Why are insider trading narratives surrounding prediction markets?

Questions over the integrity of prediction markets are not unfounded, given the events that have unfolded on various platforms.

In January 2026, a newly created Polymarket account placed a $32,000 wager that Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro would be removed from power, hours before U.S. forces seized him. That account raked in more than $430,000.

A month later, Israeli authorities charged two individuals with using classified military information to bet on Polymarket ahead of strikes on Iran.

Blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps also identified six accounts that collectively won $1 million by placing bets on the exact date of the February 28 strikes. All six accounts were funded within 24 hours of the attack.

Over $529 million was traded on Polymarket contracts tied to the timing of the Iran strikes.

Polymarket had to update its integrity rules in March 2026 as a result of those events. The platform now bans trading on confidential information that violates a duty of trust, acting on tips from insiders, and betting on outcomes a trader has the power to influence.

Neal Kumar, Polymarket’s chief legal officer, stated during that period that the rules “make our expectations abundantly clear for every participant across both platforms.”

Congressman Ritchie Torres also introduced the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026 in January, which would bar anyone with access to material non-public government information from trading on prediction markets. The bill now has more than 40 Democratic co-sponsors.

What does Car’s argument mean for prediction markets?

Car’s defense may be seen as a breath of fresh air for prediction markets, which are facing growing scrutiny over who actually profits, apart from the insider trading allegations.

Research published in April 2026 by analyst Andrey Sergeenkov found that 84.1% of Polymarket traders have lost money, with only 2% of 2.5 million wallets ever clearing $1,000 in earnings.

Only 35 traders out of 2.5 million have managed to earn the equivalent of an average U.S. monthly salary for 12 consecutive months.

Car acknowledged that one or two genuine insider cases may exist on the platform. However, he says the media’s pattern of treating every well-timed, high-conviction bet as evidence of insider knowledge distorts the reality of how prediction markets work, where large, concentrated wagers are the norm for experienced traders.