Polymarket再现可疑押注：四个新钱包同时豪赌伊朗冲突

Four newly created wallets simultaneously placed bets on Polymarket’s “US strikes Iran by Jan 31, 2026” market when the probability stood below 18%. What’s striking is that these wallets have no other betting history on the platform—they were created solely for this single bet. The coordinated timing and the wallets’ suspicious profile have raised fresh concerns about insider trading on the prediction market platform.

The Suspicious Pattern

Coordinated Behavior Raises Red Flags

The four wallets exhibited highly coordinated behavior that’s difficult to explain through coincidence. They all:

• Placed bets simultaneously or within a very short timeframe
• Targeted the same low-probability outcome (below 18%)
• Had identical trading patterns—no prior or subsequent activity on Polymarket
• Appeared to be newly created accounts

This type of synchronized activity typically suggests either advance knowledge of events or coordinated betting strategies designed to exploit market inefficiencies.

Market Context

The Iran-US tensions represented a genuine geopolitical risk factor in early January 2026. However, the 18% probability level at the time of these bets suggests the market had already priced in some risk. New wallets betting heavily at this level raises the question: did these accounts possess information not yet reflected in market pricing?

Polymarket’s Recurring Trust Problem

This incident is far from isolated. The platform has faced multiple insider trading allegations recently:

The pattern suggests Polymarket is becoming a venue where information asymmetry—particularly around geopolitical and corporate events—can be exploited before information reaches the broader market.

What This Reveals About Prediction Markets

The Information Problem

Prediction markets theoretically aggregate information efficiently, but they’re only as good as their participants’ information access. When insiders or those with advance knowledge participate, they don’t just make profits—they distort price discovery. The market stops reflecting true probability and instead reflects who has better information.

Platform Accountability Questions

Polymarket has faced criticism for:

• Refusing to clarify rules (as seen in the Venezuela invasion dispute)
• Lack of transparency in market resolution
• Insufficient monitoring for suspicious patterns
• No clear enforcement mechanisms against insider trading

The platform’s recent move to introduce taker fees on 15-minute crypto markets suggests it’s trying to address some structural issues, but these fee changes don’t address the fundamental trust problem.

What Happens Next

The market will likely watch whether:

1. The Iran military action actually occurs by January 31
2. These wallets attempt to cash out their winnings
3. Polymarket takes any action regarding these suspicious accounts
4. The broader crypto community continues to scrutinize prediction markets for insider activity

If the bets prove correct, it will fuel speculation about insider knowledge. If they prove wrong, it might be dismissed as a lucky or coordinated guess.

The Bottom Line

The simultaneous bets by four brand-new wallets on a low-probability geopolitical outcome fit a clear pattern: either exceptional luck or information advantage. Given Polymarket’s recent history of similar incidents, the platform faces a credibility crisis. Prediction markets only work if participants trust that prices reflect genuine probability assessments rather than insider knowledge. When the same platform sees repeated instances of suspicious coordinated betting, that trust erodes—and with it, the market’s core value proposition.

For traders and observers, this serves as a reminder: prediction markets are only as trustworthy as their ability to prevent and punish insider trading. Polymarket’s track record on this front remains questionable.