1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,586 | |
| 2 | Ṁ539 | |
| 3 | Ṁ270 | |
| 4 | Ṁ177 | |
| 5 | Ṁ129 |
People are also trading
@NathanpmYoung Should resolve YES. This was reported to be happening on June 26th:
"C.F.T.C. Begins Investigating Polymarket, a Test of a Key Regulator" https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/26/us/politics/cftc-investigating-polymarket-trump.html
@xjp more up to date article describes investigations as investigations into insider trading event contracts, not per se for the ends of fining or deplatforming Polymarket as your article would imply, or at least that is my read.
@parhizj These are definitely separate investigations. Your article is about an investigation into individual traders. The June story is about an investigation into Polymarket itself. Bloomberg has more details:
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting an extensive investigation into Polymarket, according to a person familiar with the matter, the latest challenge for the prediction market platform plagued by operational stumbles and legal scrutiny.
As part of the probe, the CFTC is looking into social media activity tied to Polymarket, said the person, asking for anonymity to discuss non-public information. The Wall Street Journal recently reported the company hired dozens of mostly college-aged social media creators to film themselves making fake trades with some fake wins to draw users to its site.
The probe, which includes other elements of the company’s business, comes after the CFTC and the Justice Department both closed investigations last year into whether Polymarket violated a ban on US traders using the main platform. Polymarket’s primary platform is technically off limits to Americans per the terms of a 2022 CFTC settlement but some US customers have found workarounds to circumvent that prohibition, such as virtual private networks.
@parhizj There are no specific criteria on this market, but typically markets can be resolved based on a consensus of credible reporting, which we definitely have.
@xjp consensus? You’ve shown none. The first link referenced event contracts so the investigation was into traders not the company itself. The first NYT article and the second article bloomberg link you provide both reference WSJ in their reporting. You can’t link a bunch of articles that end up referencing a single source and call it a consensus when they are not clearly independent reporting,
Schiff asked for confirmation of the latter and no public reply is since available since June.
I checked CFTC’s foia page and they haven’t published the response to that letter if their was ever one, meaning either that’s the case that there was no response or no one has filed one or foia requests will take more time.
So all we have so far you’ve provided is a single unnamed source from a single report.
@parhizj The WSJ doesn't publish something like this without thoroughly fact checking it. There's virtually zero chance it's not true.
https://x.com/nickdevor_/status/2021938434139729927?s=20
lol, as Michael Selig joked, he can inside trade here!
the near-possible market - but about fines only: https://manifold.markets/nowayitsfree/will-polymarketcom-be-fined-by-us-g