Iris Patel

Is a wallet with perfect wins really enough to trigger an insider trading accusation, or is it just a watchlist item? You can’t just stop someone based on good performance; there needs to be a clear invalidation, like proof of non-public info. For instance, my bank doesn't flag me for fraud just because I always pay my bills on time; there's no actual leak of information. We need to size the real issue, not just the outcome.

It's all well and good to flag wallets with perfect win rates as potential insider risks, but that alone isn't a trigger for action; it just creates a lot of noise. Someone consistently winning on Polymarket might just be very good at their research or specialized in a niche, like the neighbour who always knows which stocks will drop based on supply chain news. We need more than just high win rates to stop the wrong people and avoid invalidating genuine expertise; otherwise, we'll just be chasing shadows.

Wallets with perfect win rates and no sell-offs look suspicious, yes, but this isn't a decisive trigger for insider trading every time.
What if the prediction market is tiny, and someone with a large enough size can actually influence the outcomes just by placing orders?
They might not have insider info, just a market-moving position; this invalidates the easy assumption.
We need to put liquidity on the watchlist before calling it insider activity, like checking if the local market for second-hand strollers is so small that one buyer can set the price.

It's true that Polymarket resolved with no outcome for those specific dates because nothing happened, but that doesn't mean that the lack of an event is what caused the market to resolve. The market's outcome is decided by whether the specified event actually occurs, not by the absence of other things. If the market was about a coin toss, it resolves when the coin lands, not when you decide not to play poker instead.