Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 11, 2026 · 3:54 PM ET

Midterm prediction markets are drawing scrutiny over contracts tied to narrowly defined events whose outcomes could be known ahead of time. According to CNN reporting referenced by bonus.com, an analysis by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective flags such markets on Kalshi and Polymarket.

The concern: outcomes known in advance

The available summary identifies candidate withdrawals as one example. The issue is the potential information gap between participants who may already know an outcome and those trading without that knowledge.

That concern differs from ordinary disagreement over an election forecast. For these contracts, the central question is whether an event remains uncertain to all participants—or is already knowable to some before it becomes public.

What the available reporting establishes

The supplied material identifies the two platforms and the organization behind the analysis, but the bonus.com article text was unavailable. The summary does not provide specific contracts, trading records, named traders or platform responses.

The information available therefore supports a report about insider-trading scrutiny, not a conclusion that misconduct occurred. It does not establish whether anyone traded on advance knowledge of a candidate withdrawal.

What it means for prediction markets

• Contract design matters: Hyper-specific events such as candidate withdrawals raise questions about who could know the outcome before public disclosure.
• Prices need careful interpretation: The scrutiny highlights a potential distinction between a market aggregating forecasts and one exposed to advance knowledge.
• Evidence remains limited: The supplied summary flags concerns involving Kalshi and Polymarket but does not substantiate a particular instance of insider trading.

Retail losses alongside record volume

A Galaxy Research analysis found that 69.2% of 2.9M human retail accounts on Polymarket ended below break-even, according to a summary published by zubiqo.com.

The finding was cited alongside a Q3 volume record, putting retail account outcomes next to a measure of market activity. The available summary does not specify the scope or size of that volume record.

The account-level result shows that losses were widespread within the group analyzed. It does not establish how much the typical losing account lost or how losses were distributed among those accounts.

The full source text was unavailable. The supplied summary does not explain the analysis period or how Galaxy Research calculated break-even, limiting what can be concluded about the reported results.

What it means for prediction markets

• Volume and profitability are different measures. A record in trading activity does not, by itself, demonstrate profitable outcomes for retail participants.
• The denominator matters. The 69.2% figure applies to the 2.9M human retail accounts analyzed—not necessarily to unique traders or every Polymarket participant.
• Methodology remains important. Without the calculation details and measurement period, the figure offers a limited basis for comparisons across platforms or over time.