Polymarket gains cluster among a tiny share of accounts

Polymarket’s profits were heavily concentrated: 0.1 percent of accounts received three-quarters of the gains, with about 2,000 accounts netting almost 500 million dollars, according to Mogaz.

A working paper by scholars at London Business School and Yale University found that almost every bettor’s results were no better than chance. The findings distinguish the performance of the broader betting population from that of a small group of accounts.

Who contributes to market accuracy?

According to Mogaz’s account of the research, around 3 percent of accounts were responsible for market accuracy. That finding concerns a different measure from profit concentration: contributing to accurate prices is not the same as capturing a share of winnings.

Judith Levine argues that this concentration underlies the platforms’ claims about collective intelligence. Her criticism puts the emphasis on who supplies the useful information, rather than simply how many people participate.

What it means for prediction markets

• Participation and accuracy are distinct. The reported findings suggest that a market’s informational value can depend on a small minority of accounts.
• Profit concentration needs separate interpretation. The 0.1 percent share associated with three-quarters of profits and the around 3 percent associated with accuracy describe different outcomes.
• The evidence has limits here. The supplied summary does not detail the working paper’s methodology or sample period, limiting assessment of how broadly its findings apply.