TLDR
- Polymarket users increased bets on Meteora as the leading candidate in ZachXBT’s upcoming investigation.
- The contract for Meteora reached a 29 percent probability based on active trading behavior.
- ZachXBT stated that the investigation will expose employees who allegedly used internal data for insider trading.
- Traders wagered more than seven million dollars on which platform would be identified on Thursday.
- The investigation did not clarify whether the alleged insider trading involved stocks or digital assets.
Traders on the prediction platform Polymarket increased wagers on which exchange crypto sleuth ZachXBT will target next, and they pushed one project ahead quickly. The market showed heavy activity as users responded to new hints shared on X. The event drew fresh attention after he teased a “major investigation” linked to insider trading claims.
Polymarket Bets Shift Toward Meteora
As trading continued on Tuesday, users raised the probability that Meteora would be named in the probe. The contract reached 29% and moved past other listed platforms.
Users tracked each update closely, and they adjusted positions after his Monday post. However, the contracts still reflected crowd sentiment rather than privileged information.
He said the investigation would show that several employees at an unnamed exchange misused internal data. He added that they engaged in insider trading “over a prolonged period of time.”
Market participants responded fast, and they assessed which platform fit the description. The contract pool included MEXC, Axiom, and Wintermute.
By Tuesday, users had wagered more than $7 million across the choices. The total rose as traders sought clarity from his updates.
The market did not show whether the alleged insider trading involved stock or digital assets. Traders waited for his Thursday disclosure to confirm the scope.
His comments prompted rapid shifts in odds across the platform. Yet trading patterns continued to follow user guesswork rather than confirmed data.
Analysts tracking the contracts noted that trading volume increased during active discussion periods. Activity often rose within minutes of new social media posts.
The market structure allowed users to adjust quickly to every clue. However, the contract rules limited outcome definitions to his final announcement.
State Pushback and CFTC Position on Prediction Markets
Regulatory pressure increased as state officials clashed with federal regulators over these platforms. The dispute widened after the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission restated federal oversight powers.
He argued that the agency had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. He also compared them to derivatives markets.
He warned that any challenge from state authorities would be met in court. He confirmed that the agency had already filed amicus briefs in related disputes.
The platform also contested actions brought by the Massachusetts regulator. It argued that only the federal agency held authority over such markets.
Regulatory actions continued as several states pursued separate cases. These cases centered on claims that the platforms offered unlicensed gambling.
The ongoing jurisdiction conflict added pressure to both regulators and platforms. Yet trading on the platform remained active throughout the debate.
