Most Polymarket World Cup Traders Won Under $5; Five Made $1M

A Dune Analytics review of 194,422 addresses that traded Polymarket’s World Cup winner contract found 129,649 addresses, or 66.7%, finished with losses and 64,773 recorded gains.

Most accounts traded small amounts. More than 114,000 addresses lost under $100, with an average loss of $9.34 per losing account. Nearly 58,000 profitable addresses earned an average of $4.85. At the larger end, 43 addresses lost more than $100,000 each, combining for about $15.19 million in losses and averaging roughly $353,000 per account. On the winning side, 54 wallets earned more than $100,000 each, collecting about $22.3 million and averaging roughly $413,000 apiece. Crypto researcher DeFi Oasis identified five accounts-asparagus2012, Allezpapa, yamal19, thesingularityisnear and wco26-that each cleared more than $1 million.

Polymarket and rival Kalshi handled heavy tournament trading. Platform data show roughly $5.57 billion in cumulative volume on tournament champion contracts, with Polymarket at about $4.28 billion and Kalshi about $1.29 billion. H2 Gambling Capital estimated prediction markets accounted for roughly 27% of legal U.S. sports-betting volume during the World Cup, up from about 9% at the start of the year.

The 48-team format and 104 matches across the United States, Canada and Mexico produced frequent events for trading. Platforms listed contracts on match results, team advancement, total goals, individual scorers and tournament awards. Each round created fresh entry and exit points for traders and sustained liquidity across the competition.

Kyle Sonlin, president and co-founder of Global Settlement Network, commented: “Fifty-four traders capturing $22 million is not proof of insider trading, but it shows how quickly information, technology, and capital advantages can concentrate returns among a small group.”

Investors and market participants described commercial uses beyond retail speculation. Rob Hadick, a general partner at Dragonfly, noted: “Companies are exploring large trades tied to policy and regulatory outcomes. Some proposed block trades linked to legislative and regulatory exposure had reached nine figures.” He cited an example of a regional e-commerce retailer that considered tournament contracts to help plan inventory if a favored team exited earlier than expected.

Regulatory questions have followed the platforms as they expand into higher-stakes markets. Kalshi contends its contracts fall under the Commodity Exchange Act as a federally regulated derivatives exchange. Several states say sports contracts amount to unlicensed betting and remain subject to local gambling laws. A federal judge denied Kalshi’s effort to block New York from enforcing its gambling rules, and that decision is under appeal. Federal authorities have also challenged state actions in other jurisdictions while asserting Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight.

Concerns about insider information and market manipulation have arisen. Days before the World Cup final, the CFTC investigated trades linked to words a White House teleprompter operator might use in presidential speeches; Kalshi froze the account after identifying positions with more than $90,000 in potential profit. Kalshi has implemented employment disclosures for certain markets, a whistleblower portal and continuous monitoring.

Platforms face two operational questions going forward: whether they can retain users once daily tournament markets disappear, and whether prediction markets will operate in non-sports events under existing regulatory frameworks. Company directives for engineers to build prediction-market-style applications and explore partnerships with Polymarket and Kalshi could expand the user base and increase regulatory scrutiny.