In any other context, these people would be investigated, prosecuted, and punished. In the booming world of prediction markets, it’s just business as usual.
I’ve been watching this industry closely for years, and I’ve come to believe that it’s more corrosive for public life than even social media. In theory, prediction markets have genuine benefits – for information aggregation, price discovery, hedging – but these are bounded by a narrow set of conditions that political event contracts systematically fail to satisfy, and they are outweighed by the far higher costs they impose on society.
The Iran and Maduro insider-trading cases aren’t isolated incidents. The most comprehensive empirical study yet of so-called “informed” trading on Polymarket, covering more than 93,000 markets and nearly 50,000 unique wallets, found suspicious trading pairs achieving a 69.9% win rate – more than 60 standard deviations above random chance – with $143 million in anomalous profits over two years. And this almost certainly understates the problem. Skilled forecasters outperform the market, but they don’t outperform it by that much, on accounts opened days before a single event, with their largest positions placed hours before covert operations go public....insider trading, serious as it is, is actually the more tractable problem. The deeper issue is what happens when insiders can bet on an outcome they have some ability to influence. A military commander choosing to retreat a day early to quadruple a month’s salary. A diplomat betting on the success or failure of the ceasefire talks he’s leading. An intelligence analyst front-running his own assessment. An elected official making public statements or public policy based on what outcome yields them highest payoff. A journalist reporting not what happened, but whatever makes him richer … or safer. These aren’t edge cases or hypotheticals. They’re the structural consequence of financializing decisions that are supposed to be insulated from market incentives. When people can profit from outcomes they can shape, prediction markets don’t surface truth as much as they create systematic incentives to corrupt it … and the people and processes that determine what counts as such.
part one: Dylan Gyauch-Lewis is a senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project.
Dispatches From Trump’s War on Information Inside the administration’s mishandling of economic data and erosion of trust in federal statistics https://prospect.org/2026/04/02/dispatches-from-trumps-war-on-information-bls/
Ruling, vacating lower court’s temporary block, applies to classrooms and libraries up to sixth grade https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/06/iowa-lgbtq-book-ban-schools