Original report published November 7, 2026, at 17:10:35 UTC+08:00.
Suspicious bets placed shortly before the public release of two New York Times/Siena political polls drew scrutiny from Vanderbilt University researchers, according to a New York Times report cited by Cointelegraph. Whether the trader had access to nonpublic information remained unclear.
The reported trading pattern
Researchers said a Polymarket user wagered almost $200,000 on October 31 that Nebraska Senator Pete Ricketts would be re-elected. A Times/Siena poll showing Ricketts ahead was released an hour later. According to the Times’ Friday report, the user won more than $77,000 and placed similarly large bets on other markets, including Kalshi.
“There’s a series of circumstances here that it’s hard to write it off as a random occurrence,” said Brett Goldstein of the Vanderbilt Institute of National Security. He said the activity “requires further investigation.”
Polymarket said it had identified the trades and was investigating. Kalshi declined to comment.
The timing and size of the wagers explain the scrutiny, but the reported pattern does not establish that the trader obtained advance access to the polls. That distinction is central: suspicious activity is grounds for investigation, not proof of misconduct.
A separate case involving alleged nonpublic information
Cointelegraph also cited its April reporting on a US Army soldier charged after making more than $400,000 through prediction-market bets allegedly based on nonpublic information about a US operation involving then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The Department of Justice alleged that Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke participated in planning and executing Operation Absolute Resolve, which led to Maduro’s capture at a residence in Caracas, Venezuela, in January. According to the DOJ, Van Dyke allegedly used that information to buy “yes” shares in Polymarket contracts including “Maduro out by January 31” and “Trump invokes War Powers against Venezuela by January 31.”
Those allegations concern a separate case and do not establish wrongdoing by the trader behind the pre-poll wagers.