Polymarket saw $600 million in election trades after the elections were over
Polymarket recorded more than $600 million in trading across two election markets, with much of the activity involving losing candidates after outcomes were effectively settled. The patterns have raised concerns that some accounts were creating the appearance of genuine demand through repeated trades, weakening claims that prediction markets reliably reflect public opinion.
In Ethiopia’s election, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s party won 438 parliamentary seats, while its closest competitor won 13. Yet just $173,000 was traded on Ahmed winning, compared with more than $41 million on his chief of staff; about $284 million of the market’s $285 million volume came from pairs of accounts repeatedly trading with each other. Polymarket said it flagged the activity, investigated and blocked the accounts, but the market remained open for 123 days after the election. In a separate market linked to Romania’s cancelled 2024 election, a researcher estimated that 99.6 per cent of trading volume during some weeks was wash trading.
- Two election markets attracted more than $600 million in trades.
- Most Ethiopian market activity involved accounts trading with each other.
- Researchers also flagged extensive suspicious trading in a Romania market.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The large volumes may still contain useful information: even after results are widely expected, traders can disagree about the timing or certainty of settlement, and activity across accounts does not by itself establish that the market’s prices were misleading. Polymarket says it identified and blocked the accounts, showing that monitoring can address manipulation while preserving markets as a source of information and a venue for speculation.
The case against
When most trading is repeated activity between a small number of accounts, headline volume can create a false impression of broad, independent demand. Leaving a market open for months after an election result was clear, alongside evidence of extensive wash trading in another market, gives reason to question whether these markets’ reported activity can reliably represent public opinion.