Let insiders trade – Blockworks

2025/09/18 05:16

This is a segment from The Breakdown newsletter. To read more editions, subscribe


Ten months ago, FBI agents raided Shayne Coplan’s Manhattan apartment, ostensibly in search of evidence that the prediction market he founded, Polymarket, had illegally allowed US residents to place bets on the US election.

Two weeks ago, the CFTC gave Polymarket the green light to allow those very same US residents to place bets on whatever they like.

This is quite the turn of events — and it’s not just about elections or politics.

With its US government seal of approval in hand, Polymarket is reportedly raising capital at a valuation of $9 billion — a reflection of the growing belief that prediction markets will be used for much more than betting on elections once every four years.

Instead, proponents say prediction markets can provide a real service to the world by providing it with better information about nearly everything.

I think they might, too — but only if insiders are free to participate.

Yesterday, for example, Polymarket announced new betting markets on company earnings reports, with a promise that it would improve the information that investors have to work with. 

Instead of waiting three months to find out how a company is faring, investors could simply watch the odds on Polymarket. 

If the probability of an earnings beat is rising, for example, investors would know at a glance that things are going well.

But that will only happen if enough of the people betting actually know how things are going.

Relying on the wisdom of crowds to magically discern how a business is doing won’t add much incremental knowledge to the world; everyone’s guesses are unlikely to average out to the truth.

If company insiders were allowed to bet, however, prediction-market odds would offer a real-time barometer of a company’s fortunes.

This would be an excellent replacement for quarterly earnings reports if President Trump decides to ban them.

In some ways, it might even be an improvement: Why incur the trouble and expense of updating investors so frequently when investors can get the basic idea from a chart on Polymarket?

Ideally, you’d want people at all levels of the company participating.

Early in a reporting period, warehouse managers might have the best idea of how sales are going, and their bets would share that anecdotal information with the market.

Late in the reporting period, the finance department would start to know what the earnings number will be, and their bets would share that more precise information with the market.

If that sounds like insider trading to you, that’s because it is.

But that’s no reason to disallow it: Insider trading is the kind of victimless crime that’s not worth policing. 

In fact, non-insiders should not feel victimized at all. If you’re wrong, you’d rather sell to someone who knows you’re wrong, because they’ll give you a better price for your bet and you’ll lose less money. 

“Lose less money” is admittedly not much of a selling point, but prediction markets are a zero-sum game (at best), so someone has to lose.

Losing is the cost of getting better information.

In Wall Street, Gordon Gekko got new information by presenting Bud Fox with a check over lunch. 

“Astonish me, pal,” he instructed Fox. “New info. I don’t care where or how you get it, just get it.”

Fox did get it, and Gekko then shared his new information with the world by betting on it.

You probably agree with both moviegoers and lawmakers that this seems unfair. It’s hard to sympathize with Michael Douglas as a hedge fund manager with slicked-back hair.

But why would anyone do the hard work of digging up new information for free?

At their best, prediction markets are a way of paying people to dig up new information.

In the last presidential election, for example, prediction markets incentivized an anonymous Polymarket bettor to put their own poll in the field and then share that information with the world by betting on Trump to win.

More recently, Blockworks reported that the Polymarket odds of Ethena winning the USDH ticker on Hyperliquid collapsed “after validators dismissed its chances behind closed doors.”

This is precisely how prediction markets are meant to work: Polymarket incentivized someone to go get better information — otherwise hidden “behind closed doors” — and then share that information with the world by betting on it.

Unfortunately, doing the same with quarterly earnings reports will almost certainly be illegal.

In its terms of service, Polymarket prohibits several things that are universally disallowed in financial markets: front-running, wash trading, pre-arranged trading and spoofing. 

“Insider trading” is conspicuously absent, however, which is hopeful.

But there’s also a catch-all prohibition against engaging in any activity “that violates Applicable Law.” 

In the US, the laws applicable to prediction markets will be made by the CFTC, and the CFTC’s rulebook seems to prohibit insider trading: “Depending on all of the facts and circumstances, trading on the basis of material non-public information in breach of a pre-existing duty…may violate final Rule 180.1.” 

That is more permissive than the SEC’s blanket prohibition on any use of material non-public information, so it might leave scope for the CFTC to allow insiders to participate in prediction markets.

But I’m not hopeful: Every employee of an exchange-listed company has a “pre-existing duty” not to share their inside information with markets.

This is understandable as a rule designed for stock markets, where it’s important to maintain a sense of fairness.

If people think the stock market is rigged, they’ll be less inclined to invest, and companies will have a harder time raising capital.

But what’s the harm in letting insiders share their information with prediction markets?

No one’s betting their 401k money on Polymarket, so there’s no harm in people thinking that the odds are stacked against them. 

(Nor will it stop people from participating. Everyone knows the odds are against them in sports betting, but they keep betting on sports.)

If anything, allowing insiders to trade in prediction markets would make stock markets more fair by disseminating information to everyone at the same time.

Without insiders, we’ll learn how uninformed people think a company is doing, which isn’t very helpful.

With insiders, we’ll learn how informed people know a company is doing, which is. 

The purpose of prediction markets is to provide better information to the world, and the best information comes from insiders, so they should be encouraged to participate — even if that means we have to pay them.

“It’s all about bucks,” Gordon Gekko explained to Bud Fox. 

“The rest is conversation.”


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Source: https://blockworks.co/news/insider-trading-polymarket

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Prominent analyst Cheeky Crypto (203,000 followers on YouTube) set out to verify a fast-spreading claim that XRP’s circulating supply could “vanish overnight,” and his conclusion is more nuanced than the headline suggests: nothing in the ledger disappears, but the amount of XRP that is truly liquid could be far smaller than most dashboards imply—small enough, in his view, to set the stage for an abrupt liquidity squeeze if demand spikes. XRP Supply Shock? The video opens with the host acknowledging his own skepticism—“I woke up to a rumor that XRP supply could vanish overnight. Sounds crazy, right?”—before committing to test the thesis rather than dismiss it. He frames the exercise as an attempt to reconcile a long-standing critique (“XRP’s supply is too large for high prices”) with a rival view taking hold among prominent community voices: that much of the supply counted as “circulating” is effectively unavailable to trade. His first step is a straightforward data check. Pulling public figures, he finds CoinMarketCap showing roughly 59.6 billion XRP as circulating, while XRPScan reports about 64.7 billion. The divergence prompts what becomes the video’s key methodological point: different sources count “circulating” differently. Related Reading: Analyst Sounds Major XRP Warning: Last Chance To Get In As Accumulation Balloons As he explains it, the higher on-ledger number likely includes balances that aggregators exclude or treat as restricted, most notably Ripple’s programmatic escrow. He highlights that Ripple still “holds a chunk of XRP in escrow, about 35.3 billion XRP locked up across multiple wallets, with a nominal schedule of up to 1 billion released per month and unused portions commonly re-escrowed. Those coins exist and are accounted for on-ledger, but “they aren’t actually sitting on exchanges” and are not immediately available to buyers. In his words, “for all intents and purposes, that escrow stash is effectively off of the market.” From there, the analysis moves from headline “circulating supply” to the subtler concept of effective float. Beyond escrow, he argues that large strategic holders—banks, fintechs, or other whales—may sit on material balances without supplying order books. When you strip out escrow and these non-selling stashes, he says, “the effective circulating supply… is actually way smaller than the 59 or even 64 billion figure.” He cites community estimates in the “20 or 30 billion” range for what might be truly liquid at any given moment, while emphasizing that nobody has a precise number. That effective-float framing underpins the crux of his thesis: a potential supply shock if demand accelerates faster than fresh sell-side supply appears. “Price is a dance between supply and demand,” he says; if institutional or sovereign-scale users suddenly need XRP and “the market finds that there isn’t enough XRP readily available,” order books could thin out and prices could “shoot on up, sometimes violently.” His phrase “circulating supply could collapse overnight” is presented not as a claim that tokens are destroyed or removed from the ledger, but as a market-structure scenario in which available inventory to sell dries up quickly because holders won’t part with it. How Could The XRP Supply Shock Happen? On the demand side, he anchors the hypothetical to tokenization. He points to the “very early stages of something huge in finance”—on-chain tokenization of debt, stablecoins, CBDCs and even gold—and argues the XRP Ledger aims to be “the settlement layer” for those assets.He references Ripple CTO David Schwartz’s earlier comments about an XRPL pivot toward tokenized assets and notes that an institutional research shop (Bitwise) has framed XRP as a way to play the tokenization theme. In his construction, if “trillions of dollars in value” begin settling across XRPL rails, working inventories of XRP for bridging, liquidity and settlement could rise sharply, tightening effective float. Related Reading: XRP Bearish Signal: Whales Offload $486 Million In Asset To illustrate, he offers two analogies. First, the “concert tickets” model: you think there are 100,000 tickets (100B supply), but 50,000 are held by the promoter (escrow) and 30,000 by corporate buyers (whales), leaving only 20,000 for the public; if a million people want in, prices explode. Second, a comparison to Bitcoin’s halving: while XRP has no programmatic halving, he proposes that a sudden adoption wave could function like a de facto halving of available supply—“XRP’s version of a halving could actually be the adoption event.” He also updates the narrative context that long dogged XRP. Once derided for “too much supply,” he argues the script has “totally flipped.” He cites the current cycle’s optics—“XRP is sitting above $3 with a market cap north of around $180 billion”—as evidence that raw supply counts did not cap price as tightly as critics claimed, and as a backdrop for why a scarcity narrative is gaining traction. Still, he declines to publish targets or timelines, repeatedly stressing uncertainty and risk. “I’m not a financial adviser… cryptocurrencies are highly volatile,” he reminds viewers, adding that tokenization could take off “on some other platform,” unfold more slowly than enthusiasts expect, or fail to get to “sudden shock” scale. The verdict he offers is deliberately bound. The theory that “XRP supply could vanish overnight” is imprecise on its face; the ledger will not erase coins. But after examining dashboard methodologies, escrow mechanics and the behavior of large holders, he concludes that the effective float could be meaningfully smaller than headline supply figures, and that a fast-developing tokenization use case could, under the right conditions, stress that float. “Overnight is a dramatic way to put it,” he concedes. “The change could actually be very sudden when it comes.” At press time, XRP traded at $3.0198. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/09/18 11:00
Share