OOver the past three months, four accounts on a popular betting site have placed thousands of bets totaling more than $50 million on Donald Trump’s victory in next week’s US presidential election. The bets, placed on prediction platform Polymarket, appear to have massively skewed the odds in Trump’s favor on the site, with the total figure representing around 2 percent of all bets on the 2024 election.

The four accounts – Fredi9999, Theo4, PrincessCaro and Michie – are traced back to a single French citizen with “extensive trading experience and (a) background in the financial services industry,” according to a statement from Polymarket. The betting platform said there was no evidence the trader placed the bets to deliberately boost Trump’s odds, although the incident proved how easy it is for a wealthy individual to manipulate the market.

The latest figures from Polymarket give Trump a 66 percent chance of defeating Democratic rival Kamala Harris, who has only a one-in-three chance of capturing the White House under these projections. Meanwhile, the latest national polling average, compiled by FiveThirtyEight, has Trump winning by just 46.7 percent and Harris winning by 48.1 percent.

Some fear Trump’s wildly inflated bets could be used by his supporters as evidence that the election was stolen, while regulators have warned that betting sites such as Polymarket pose a significant threat to electoral integrity.

open image in gallery

Many Trump supporters are already sharing screenshots of the latest odds on social media as proof that victory is inevitable. Trump ally Elon Musk shared a screenshot of the Republican candidate’s growing lead in the betting markets on

Conservative commentator Joe Kernen, who appears on CNBC’s Squawk Box, has often referenced the odds on air and has shared screenshots of Trump’s Polymarket odds on social media. Conversely, Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg described the betting market odds as “Polymarket voodoo,” adding that “any analyst who takes this seriously should be ignored.”

open image in gallery

Polymarket, which is backed by billionaire Trump supporter Peter Thiel, allows people to bet on the outcome of future events using cryptocurrency. Currently, only users outside the US can use it to bet on the US elections, although the semi-anonymous nature of cryptocurrency, combined with technologies such as virtual private networks (VPNs), makes it possible to bypass the platform’s terms of service.

The rules are also changing to favor online gambling sites when it comes to US elections. Last month, a US federal judge overturned a ban on election outcome betting in the country imposed by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Online betting markets have already run TV ads during Trump rallies, with Kalshi offering Right Side Broadcasting Network viewers $175 off a $100 bet on a win for the Republican candidate. Popular trading platform Robinhood also started offering election betting this week, opening the market to millions more potential voters.

The CFTC alleges that election betting “ultimately commoditizes and erodes the integrity of the unique American experience of participating in the democratic election process,” according to a statement issued in May by Rostin Behnam, chairman of the financial regulator.

Political figures have also warned about the potential dangers that online gambling sites pose when it comes to elections. Last year, U.S. senators claimed in a letter to regulators that Polymarket and other gambling sites pose a “clear threat to our democracy.”

The letter, co-signed by prominent Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, argued that the “mass commodification” of the democratic process would fundamentally undermine its integrity.

“Introducing financial incentives into the electoral process fundamentally changes the motivations behind every vote, potentially replacing political beliefs with financial calculations,” the letter said.

“For example, billionaires could increase their already outsized influence over politics by making extraordinary bets while contributing to a specific candidate or party. There are major ethical concerns, as political insiders who know non-public information can use their inside information to make a profit at voters’ expense.

“Finally, these bets can influence the outcome of our elections, undermining voters’ votes. If citizens believe that the democratic process is being influenced by those with financial interests, it could further exacerbate the disenfranchisement and voter distrust that our nation already faces.”

open image in gallery

New research by crypto research firms Chaos Labs and Inca Digital has found that Polymarket’s activity shows signs of market manipulation, with such trading accounting for around a third of all trading during the presidential election. The reports, first reported by Fortune, further cast doubt on the site’s veracity.

This is what a Polymarket spokesperson said The independent that such activities are not unique to Polymarket, but that the platform’s transparency makes it easier for people to spot them.

“What makes Polymarket unique is that, unlike traditional financial markets, Polymarket makes all transactions on its platform transparent and publicly available, including to researchers,” the spokesperson said. “Polymarket’s terms of use expressly prohibit market manipulation. We strive to provide users with the most honest analysis possible and our transparency allows the market to decide.”

Shayne Coplan, the founder of Polymarket, described his creation last week on X as a ‘reality check’ that extends far beyond the American elections.

“Hopefully politics is the first step in helping the masses realize the value of market-based forecasting,” he wrote.

“The market determines the price, not the operator. There is no ‘house’ that determines the odds. It’s the invisible hand, not the thumb on the scale… As these markets become more popular, liquid and accessible, we envision a world where markets drive decision-making and opinions are backed by capital. The downstream effect is an information landscape with less sensationalism and more truth.”