Polymarket Accused of Using Fake Winning Bets to Fuel Viral Growth
Polymarket, the crypto-based prediction market platform, is facing its most serious credibility crisis yet after a Wall Street Journal investigation revealed the company paid a network of social media creators to stage fake winning bets on replica versions of its website — targeting American users it is legally prohibited from serving.
The Scope of the Campaign
The Wall Street Journal reviewed 1,105 videos posted by 10 creators between December 2025 and mid-May 2026 and found that approximately 70% featured betting activity. Yet none of the wagers — representing roughly $1.9 million in displayed value — were actually placed on Polymarket’s live platform.
The mechanics of the scheme were deliberately deceptive. To support the promotional campaign, Polymarket reportedly created replica versions of its website that closely resembled the live platform. One example cited by the Journal was “poiymarket.com,” a domain designed to appear similar to “polymarket.com” when the letter “i” is capitalized. The imitation websites allowed creators to showcase fabricated trades, profits, and account balances without risking actual funds.
Across 118 videos, creators celebrated roughly $900,000 in fabricated wins — bets that on the real market would have lost more than $166,000.
The Wall Street Journal Investigation
A Specific Example
One clip illustrated the depth of the deception in stark terms. The report highlighted college student George Makihara, who posted a January video claiming to have earned a $100,000 profit from a wager that President Donald Trump would mention “McDonald’s” during the month. The clip relied on footage of Trump saying the word two months earlier, making the wager impossible to win under the market’s actual rules. More than 50 real users reportedly placed the same bet in January, and all lost.
The Creator Network and Undisclosed Payments
Creators were paid about $2,000 to $3,000 a month and told not to disclose the arrangement. Some added “@polymarket partner” to their bios only after the paper started asking questions. The firm worked closely with a hired marketing contractor to promote the site.
Marketing firm Virality managed a network of “clippers” and paid them only when at least 60% of their audience was based in the U.S. The clips drew more than 140 million views across TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, per analytics provider Tubular. That reach was no accident — the campaign targeted American users despite Polymarket being legally prohibited from serving them.
A Platform Built on Transparency — Undermined by Its Own Marketing
The irony of the scandal is hard to overstate. Polymarket’s central value proposition rests on the verifiability of its markets. Real trades on the platform run on the Polygon blockchain and settle in USDC, with every position publicly auditable. Yet its growth strategy operated entirely in the shadows — on dummy sites, with undisclosed payments, using footage that misrepresented real-world events.
Of the 1,105 TikTok videos the Journal reviewed, 778 appeared to show someone placing a bet — but a closer look reportedly revealed that none featured the actual Polymarket website. For more than half of the videos that appeared to show winning bets, those bets would in reality have been losses.
A Second Marketing Scandal This Month
The fake bets investigation is not the first disclosure controversy to hit Polymarket in June 2026. On June 5, Politico reported that Polymarket Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber used a personal PayPal account to compensate creators who promoted Polymarket odds on X without clearly labeling the posts as paid advertisements. According to that report, Modabber distributed at least $350,000 directly to creators, while the account used for payments reportedly sent more than $2.5 million to over 800 individuals.
Politico Report
The Journal also reported that popular streamer Adin Ross maintains a multimillion-dollar partnership with Polymarket, and that creators were paid to promote at least 19 videos discussing how users could potentially profit from inside information when trading on prediction markets. Polymarket has stated it prohibits trading based on stolen or confidential data.
Regulatory Pressure Mounts
The revelations arrive at a moment of acute regulatory sensitivity for Polymarket. After years operating offshore, the company secured a CFTC-regulated path back into the U.S. via an amended order in late 2025 for intermediated access through brokerages, and has been expanding its domestic presence. The fake campaign now threatens to complicate that effort.
Legal battles are piling up on multiple fronts. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman filed lawsuits in state court against both Polymarket and rival Kalshi, accusing both of running unlicensed sports wagering in the state. Coleman said: “Kalshi and Polymarket are operating illegal sportsbooks in Kentucky and breaking our laws.” On the same day Kentucky filed its lawsuit, a Michigan federal judge also ruled against Polymarket, finding its sports event contracts are not covered by federal commodities law.
Both platforms have pushed back, arguing their products fall under federal — not state — jurisdiction. A Polymarket spokesperson told ReadWrite that Kentucky’s lawsuit “runs counter to the CFTC’s established framework for regulating prediction markets” and said the company looks forward to addressing the claims through the courts.
Polymarket’s Response
In a statement cited by the Wall Street Journal, Polymarket said it is “committed to maintaining accurate, fair, and transparent markets” and plans to conduct a comprehensive review of its promotional content.
Polymarket is currently trailing rival Kalshi in monthly volume, according to The Block’s data dashboard, with its regulated onshore U.S. exchange in a distant third. Whether its planned audit can meaningfully restore user trust — and satisfy regulators evaluating its onshore ambitions — remains an open question.
What It Means for the Prediction Market Industry
The Polymarket scandal exposes a tension running through the entire prediction market sector: platforms whose legitimacy depends on transparency and verifiability have, in some cases, relied on opaque and misleading marketing to attract the users they need to grow. For a company whose core pitch is that every trade is publicly auditable on-chain, conducting a growth campaign that was deliberately unverifiable cuts directly against its founding premise.
With competing legal battles in over a dozen states, a fresh federal scrutiny overhang, and now a major editorial investigation into its marketing practices, Polymarket enters a critical period that will test whether its onshore aspirations can survive the reputational damage.