Polymarket paid influencers to fake winning bets, built dummy websites to pull it off

[Daniel Sims]

Fake BS: Prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi have exploded in popularity, even as both platforms contend with regulatory pressure and fraud allegations. While Kalshi means to dodge comparisons to illegal sports betting, Polymarket now faces accusations that it paid a network of social media creators to stage fake winning bets on camera.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Polymarket paid at least 10 influencers over the past several months to post videos in which they pretended to win hundreds of thousands on fake wagers. The Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, currently has a data partnership with Polymarket.

In one example that typifies the strategy, influencer George Makihara posted a video in January that appears to show him betting that President Donald Trump would say the word "McDonald's" that month. The video ends with a shot of Makihara leaping towards the camera after Trump mentions the restaurant chain on TV, suggesting that the influencer won $100,000.

However, further investigation revealed that Trump never said "McDonald's" on TV in January, and more than 50 real accounts placed the same bet that month – all of them losing. Makihara had filmed the wager on a dummy clone of Polymarket's website, then used footage of Trump from months earlier.

The Journal reviewed 1,105 videos from 10 creators, posted between December 2025 and mid-May. About 70% showed a bet, none of them real.

Across 118 of those videos, creators touted nearly $900,000 in fabricated winnings on positions that would have lost more than $166,000 in live markets. Red flags included outdated footage and fake URLs – including one at "poiymarket.com," a lookalike domain designed to resemble the real site when the "I" is capitalized. Some clips appeared to show internal test environments used by Polymarket's engineers, and others disappeared after the Journal began asking questions.

Polymarket recently admitted to Politico that it pays influencers to mention the company, but many do not clearly disclose that their posts are sponsored.

The Journal also found that some influencers received detailed instructions on how to use the dummy sites. Creators were paid around $2,000 to $3,000 per month and told not to disclose the arrangement; some added "@polymarket partner" to their bios only after the Journal made inquiries. One influencer compared the practice to how restaurants use artificial or styled food in ads – visually appealing, but not the real thing.

Since its meteoric rise, Polymarket has courted controversy amid multiple instances of insider trading, other signs of fraud, and studies showing that most bettors lose money. An August 2025 study estimated nearly $40 million in profits extracted through arbitrage on the platform.

A separate Columbia University study found that roughly 25% of Polymarket's historical trading volume was likely wash trading, spanning data through October 2025. A prior WSJ analysis found that 67% of profits on Polymarket went to just 0.1% of accounts.

Permalink to story:

Polymarket paid influencers to fake winning bets, built dummy websites to pull it off

 

[Dr Roboto]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked.

 

[pnntmp]

A WSJ investigation found 10 creators posted 1,100+ videos of fake wagers totaling $1.9 million

That's truly ridiculous
1.9 million is *nothing* compared to the size of what's going on on Polymarket, that's probably the amount of money moving around every 100 milliseconds.
If we divide $1.9 million by 1100, each video faked less than 2K of .. what? Who in their right mind would do that?

 

[p51d007]

Gee, a "betting" site that cheats?
Like I've said before...you don't think Vegas got built on the backs of WINNER do ya?
Same with these betting places. They get the suckers to bet!
Not to mention you can bet (no pun intended) they are using AI to watch how people bet,
then tease them with a win here and there to pull them in farther and farther.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

I like it how when these prediction markets call it as so to get around betting rules and regulations. it's just like when people on social media get arrested for committing a crime and say it was a prank. Technology is making people more stupid in some ways.

 

[human7]

Charge Polymarket and arrest the "influencers" (can the media finally start calling them shills now?) for fraud, etc.

 

[Squid Surprise]

That's truly ridiculous
1.9 million is *nothing* compared to the size of what's going on on Polymarket, that's probably the amount of money moving around every 100 milliseconds.
If we divide $1.9 million by 1100, each video faked less than 2K of .. what? Who in their right mind would do that?

Pay me $2,000 to post a fake video and you’ll see it online tomorrow

 

[Kirby1]

Obvious scam is scam. Wow.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Did anyone actually trust a casino?

Oh who am I kidding, millions do, which is why they make so much money. Legalizing gambling was a terrible idea.

 

[NumberNine]

While underhanded, this is actually one the more tame and less sinister aspects of e-commerce. It happens every day.

Influencers are marketing mercenaries, paid to say anything and yet not accountable to legal, as a corporate employee would be.

Use this to decide how much thought or time you give them.

 

[pnntmp]

Pay me $2,000 to post a fake video and you’ll see it online tomorrow

LOL OK me too, but they didn't get $2K to make a video.
As I understand the article, $2K is the average amount of a fake wager displayed in these videos.

 

[Endymio]

Gee, a "betting" site that cheats?
Like I've said before...you don't think Vegas got built on the backs of WINNER [sic] do ya?

You're a bit confused. At Vegas, you bet (almost always) against the house; at Polymarket you bet against other users, and they take a percentage off the top. Whether you win or lose, they still make money.

Charge Polymarket and arrest the "influencers" (can the media finally start calling them shills now?) for fraud, etc.

No fraud here. All fraud is deceptive, but not all deception is fraud. For every single bet placed on Polymarket, there is both a loser and a winner, both of them users, nor did these videos suggest otherwise. Fraud requires an element of actual financial loss.

Did anyone actually trust a casino?

Modern casinos are honest. They honestly inform you that the odds on all house games are stacked against you, and the average user will lose a fixed percentage of every dollar they bet.

 

[Vanderlinde]

There are so many vague casino's paying content creators a few bucks to present a video, and present game(s) with an inhouse edge or no provider fees, to pretty much spam, flood platforms like youtube for their own branding.

Like it's just so obvious, these people are not even hiding it. The polymarket is no different as they need constant new fresh blood for their platform(s).

A good brand doesnt have to spam to circumvent.

 

[human7]

No fraud here. All fraud is deceptive, but not all deception is fraud. For every single bet placed on Polymarket, there is both a loser and a winner, both of them users, nor did these videos suggest otherwise. Fraud requires an element of actual financial loss.

Fraud, false advertising, whatever; the name of the crime is secondary to the fact that this is a criminal act.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Fraud, false advertising, whatever; the name of the crime is secondary to the fact that this is a criminal act.

His point is that it might be morally wrong but it ISN’T a crime… you have to break laws for that to be the case…

 

[Endymio]

Fraud, false advertising, whatever; the name of the crime is secondary to the fact that this is a criminal act.

You can't alter reality by denying it. Under federal law, a criminal complaint of false advertising requires five separate elements, at least 2-3 of which are absent here.

His point is that it might be morally wrong but it ISN’T a crime… you have to break laws for that to be the case…

Exactly. This may be deceptive, but it's not materially deceptive. It is in fact no different than a firm paying a celebrity to claim they use their products, which has been a staple of advertising for decades.

 

[human7]

His point is that it might be morally wrong but it ISN’T a crime… you have to break laws for that to be the case…

You can't alter reality by denying it. Under federal law, a criminal complaint of false advertising requires five separate elements, at least 2-3 of which are absent here.


Exactly. This may be deceptive, but it's not materially deceptive. It is in fact no different than a firm paying a celebrity to claim they use their products, which has been a staple of advertising for decades.

I don't have to alter reality. The lack of disclosure is itself a crime, let alone the rest of it, as Section 5 of the Federal Trace Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts, though it's unlikely the current administration will care.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200806/ftca.pdf

 

[Northy]

Polymarket isn't in the US, does not legally trade inside it and is not subject to US laws federal or otherwise.

A betting website being unethical is hardly news though.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I don't have to alter reality. The lack of disclosure is itself a crime, let alone the rest of it, as Section 5 of the Federal Trace Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts, though it's unlikely the current administration will care.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/200806/ftca.pdf

They aren’t a US company…

 

[Endymio]

I don't have to alter reality. The lack of disclosure is itself a crime, let alone the rest of it, as Section 5 of the Federal Trace Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts

Oops! You shouldn't post documents you haven't read; your link substantiates my claim, right there on page 1:

"The misleading representation, omission, or practice is material"

Per the FTC, the material requirement for a false advertising claim is one part of a three-prong test. Current case law adds 2 more required elements, but the lack of materiality here is the primary point. How specifically did this ad misrepresent the nature of Polymarket's products and services? This actual win did not exist, no more you're actually seeing an actor regularly brushing their teeth with the actual product in a toothpaste ad. But it didn't change your perception of the odds of winning -- since you bet against other winners, no matter what you bet upon, exactly 50% of all bets are winners, 50% are losers.

 

[Eflow]

"A prior WSJ analysis found that 67% of profits on Polymarket went to just 0.1% of accounts"

Don't waste your money on prediction markets, kids. If you insist on gambling, you are better off in the derivatives market (just make sure you take positions which limit your losses).

 

[Endymio]

"A prior WSJ analysis found that 67% of profits on Polymarket went to just 0.1% of accounts"

...And? If you believe this is highly significant, you're misunderstanding statistics. This figure is a result of two factors, the first of which is a simple distribution called the Lorenz Curve. Very few accounts on Polymarket will place multi-million dollar bets; those are the ones who'll garner the majority of both profits AND losses. I'd estimate that just 0.1% of accounts constitute at least 40% of losses as well.

Why the disparity? That's where the second factor comes into play. If you have a high degree of assurance in some future event, you are more likely to wager a larger sum on it. This might be inside information, or just common sense. For instance, if Polymarket had a bet that AI was a "bubble" that would collapse and vanish within the next few years, I'd bet every penny against it, and take money from hundreds, perhaps thousands of people willing to wager small sums against me.

 

[Eflow]

...And? If you believe this is highly significant, you're misunderstanding statistics. This figure is a result of two factors, the first of which is a simple distribution called the Lorenz Curve. Very few accounts on Polymarket will place multi-million dollar bets; those are the ones who'll garner the majority of both profits AND losses. I'd estimate that just 0.1% of accounts constitute at least 40% of losses as well.

Why the disparity? That's where the second factor comes into play. If you have a high degree of assurance in some future event, you are more likely to wager a larger sum on it. This might be inside information, or just common sense. For instance, if Polymarket had a bet that AI was a "bubble" that would collapse and vanish within the next few years, I'd bet every penny against it, and take money from hundreds, perhaps thousands of people willing to wager small sums against me.

Is it your full-time job to post here?

You don't seem to understand that prediction markets are where people with money and insider information go to capitalize on those two assets.

 

[Endymio]

You don't seem to understand that prediction markets are where people with money and insider information go to capitalize on those two assets.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend plain English, as I specifically noted that "people with money" (the top end of the Lorenz Curve) use, among other factors, inside information to profit here. Not that I should even have to point this out: anyone betting on a future event without some assurance it will come to pass is either a fool or a gambling junkie.

Is it your full-time job to post here?

I type fast, and suffer from the misguided belief that most people, when presented repeatedly with facts, will eventually accept them.