Investigation finds Polymarket paid influencers to post videos of fabricated wins
This story involves financial_misconduct. Any claims of wrongdoing described here are allegations, not established facts, unless a court or official body has ruled otherwise. This disclosure does not remove our responsibility for what's published below.
See sources Request a correction Report a serious problem / request takedown Corrections & takedown policy
Generated , updated since first publication on as new sources were added. Reviewed by a human editor on .
A Wall Street Journal investigation found that the prediction market platform Polymarket paid creators to promote fake trades on a replica website. The report identified over 1,100 social media clips featuring winnings that did not occur on the actual platform.
Amalgamated from TechCrunch (opens in new tab), The Verge (opens in new tab), Engadget (opens in new tab), Slashdot (opens in new tab)
An investigation by the Wall Street Journal has reported that the prediction market platform Polymarket paid individuals to produce social media content featuring fabricated wins. The investigation, which was covered and synthesized by several technology news outlets, identified more than 1,100 videos where creators appeared to celebrate significant gains on what were actually simulated versions of the website's interface.
Investigation findings
According to reports from TechCrunch and The Verge, many of these promotional clips were filmed using a nearly perfect replica of the Polymarket platform. This duplicate site allowed influencers to simulate trades and winnings in an environment that mirrored the visual experience of the live service. While the creators did not include disclosures stating they were being paid for these specific segments, the Wall Street Journal confirmed through interviews with several individuals that payment was provided specifically to generate this content.
Scope of fabricated content
The investigation included a detailed analysis of 1,105 videos and an examination of the guidance provided to creators to craft their social media posts. Reports from Slashdot highlighted instances where users were presented with high-value figures; for example, one college student shared a video claiming to have won $100,000, while other clips featured wins totaling nearly $410,000 across multiple videos. None of these transactions occurred on the actual platform, as they were performed on the lookalike site instead.
Use of mock platforms
Engadget reported that the use of these replica sites was intended to create a specific impression for potential users. By utilizing these versions, the company could ensure influencers showcased consistent results while displaying large payouts. The reports suggest this strategy was designed to portray the platform as a source of significant rewards by using fabricated trades that were never executed on the live market.
Additional reporting indicates that many of the creators involved in these campaigns were college-aged individuals. These influencers received specific instructions to help craft their narratives, even though they did not disclose the payment or the fact that the winning amounts were not real. The discrepancy between the content shared on social media and the actual data on the platform has been highlighted as a core finding of the investigation.