ZachXBT, Axiom, and the Betting Incident Causing a Stir on Polymarket

An investigation into insider trading in the crypto industry was already shocking enough. But this time, what has the community buzzing isn’t just the exposed name — it’s how the entire market turned that event into an “information gambling” frenzy.

When an Investigation Turns into a Million-Dollar Betting Game On February 23, ZachXBT hinted on X that he was about to reveal the results of a major investigation targeting “one of the most profitable companies in the crypto industry,” accusing employees of using insider data for trading. No name was given, only the announcement date: February 26. Immediately, Polymarket opened a betting market: which company would be named? Initially, Meteora led with a 43% probability, while Axiom was around 13%. Trading volume quickly surpassed $30 million — a sign of enormous interest. But the night before the announcement, a Meteora co-founder denied any involvement. Axiom’s odds jumped to 35%. And on the morning of February 26, when ZachXBT officially named Axiom, the market immediately closed at 100%.

12 Hidden Wallets and 7 Figures in Profits

After the results were announced, the on-chain community started “digging into” transaction histories. Polysights found 5 wallets that placed about $50,000 into Axiom just before the announcement, earning around $266,000 in profit. Lookonchain identified 12 wallets suspected of insider trading, turning a total of $400,000 into $1.42 million. A account named “predictorxyz” bet $65,800 when the probability was only 13.8%, earning over $411,000. Two newly created wallets placed nearly $60,000 just hours before the announcement, making about $109,000 in three hours. Common point: new wallets, participating in only one market, betting at the most sensitive moments.

The obvious paradox here: an insider trading investigation turned into an opportunity for another form of “insider trading” in the prediction market. ZachXBT himself joked that if he traded insider information on his own investigation, he might be “exposing himself” in the process.

The Core Issue: Accusations Against Axiom According to the investigation, Broox Bauer — a senior business development staff in New York — is accused of abusing Axiom’s internal tools to access sensitive user data.

Through referral codes, wallet addresses, or account IDs, he could track detailed activity of any user on the platform. An internal Google Sheets document is believed to compile wallet addresses of several crypto KOLs. This group targets famous traders who often accumulate memecoins from their personal wallets before publicly promoting them. When they detect a wallet quietly hoarding, they buy first, wait for the price to rise, then take profits. Axiom responded that they are “shocked and disappointed,” have revoked the involved individual’s access, and are conducting an internal investigation. Not Just Polymarket: The Kalshi Story A few days earlier, Kalshi — a U.S. competitor of Polymarket — also handled two insider trading cases: Artem Kaptur, a video editor for the YouTube channel MrBeast (over 460 million followers), placed bets based on unreleased video content. He was fined $20,000, banned from trading for 2 years, and his case was transferred to the CFTC. Kyle Langford, a California gubernatorial candidate, bet $200 on himself and encouraged others to do the same. He was banned from trading for 5 years and fined over $2,000. The difference lies in: Kalshi operates under the oversight of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with clear monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Meanwhile, the Axiom incident took place on Polymarket’s international platform — which does not require strict identity verification, allows wallets to be created and traded within minutes, and withdrawals are almost unregulated. The Big Question for the Prediction Market Prediction markets are promoted as tools reflecting “crowd wisdom.” But when insider information can be turned into instant trading advantage, the line between prediction and manipulation becomes blurred. If someone knows critical information in advance, they can bet and profit almost guaranteed. And when platforms operate outside regulatory oversight, the questions arise: Who is responsible? How to detect insider trading when everything is hidden behind blockchain wallets? Is the prediction market becoming a fertile ground for those with “early information”? The ZachXBT — Axiom case might just be the beginning. But it has already exposed a major paradox in crypto: transparency technology doesn’t necessarily mean transparent behavior. And in a world where information is money, the question isn’t “who is right,” but “who knew first.”