What signs? This article is absolute slop (not AI, but slop).

I do not have any reason to doubt that people are doing insider trading. The US admin is obviously corrupt and the Iran attacks are the most abject symptom of its corruption so far.

But you can't just put out a bunch of completely isolated observations with zero analysis and say "that looks like insider trading". There is nothing at all in here that presents an argument for that claim.

I am a daily Guardian reader but I stopped paying for it coz there are so many articles like this that are just complete fucking trash. Because I am the target audience (leftist Euro who can easily get riled up by topics like this) it pisses me off when I feel I'm being manipulated.

▲

troyvit 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it would be fun to discover that there is inside trading going on here, but it's coming from Iranians.

▲

MrLeap 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I appreciate your perspective on this. We're living in an era of sensationalism and noise. It wont get better until a lot of people from every political disposition becomes tired of hollow words designed only to create BIG FEELINGS.

Imagine an era where the majority leans in on a balance of compassion for self and others.

▲

bjackman 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Breakdown of the presented points:

> Eight accounts, all newly created around 21 March, bet a total of nearly $70,000 (£52,000) on there being a ceasefire.

Is that anomalous? Are these numbers large in context?

> They stand to make nearly $820,000 if such a deal is reached before 31 March.

Yes that is indeed how prediction markets work for unlikely events?

> An account that made the same bet was created shortly before the US struck Iran on 28 February. It also placed a winning bet on those strikes, which raised similar questions around insider trading, and so far has bet on nothing else.

Is that anomalous? If I was betting 5 figure sums I would also stick to my areas of expertise. That doesn't mean I'm an insider.

> The new accounts all appear to have been created late last week, around the time when the US president, Donald Trump, appeared to first double down on war with Iran, then suggest in an after-markets Truth Social post that he was considering “winding down” military operations.

So what??? Is anything about that anomalous? What is that supposed to tell us about the accounts?

> The wallets “definitely [look like] someone with some degree of inside info”, said Ben Yorke, formerly a researcher with CoinTelegraph, now building an AI trading platform called Starchild.

"Some random fucking guy said this thing", OK?

> But online crypto watchers and experts suggested that the bets bore the signs of insider trading – both because they bought their positions at market price,

What the fuck does that even mean?

> and because some of the accounts looked like they could belong to a single investor attempting to conceal their identity by splitting their bet between multiple wallets.

This is just repeating a former claim that was not backed up with any rationale. And note the very next sentence provides an alternative motive for traders to split wallets, aside from insider trading.

> “Typically, when you see wallet-splitting and deliberate attempts to obfuscate identity, it’s one of two scenarios: either a very large investor trying to shield their position from market impact, or insider trading,” said Yorke.

But we haven't been presented with any evidence that we're seeing either of those things?? And also I can't help repeating, why the fuck are we supposed to listen to this guy's opinion?

> Polymarket’s own rating of the probability of a ceasefire before 31 March increased significantly in the past few days, from 6% on 21 March to 24% by Monday. More than $21m is currently being wagered on this outcome.

Again, this is just describing the normal and intended mechanics of the market. It's not anomalous and it's not evidence of wrongdoing.

Also it makes the $70k figure from the beginning look pretty small.

▲

lucaspm98 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Publications must love they can now pump out an article every time someone creates a new account to place a large wager on a prediction market.

Having been a semi-pro sports bettor for a short stint as it went through legalization in the U.S., I’ve personally had tens of thousands wagered on sports teams I’ve never heard of before. Over the course of thousands of bets it becomes statistically inevitable that you have wagers placed right before major news (both for and against you).

It’s even entirely possible this individual has some or all their position hedged on another platform effectively capture a tiny arbitrage in the market.

There’s tons of upstart market makers on these prediction markets doing hundreds of thousands in volume a week as they provide liquidity, grinding out small edges in a way you’d never be able to know their true exposure to any one market across platforms.

It’s of course entirely possible this is an insider, but as a journalist you need something more than a large bet + good timing. Out of millions of wagers there will inevitably be plenty of random people who bet on a football game 5 minutes before the quarterback gets injured purely out of dumb luck.

	▲	bjackman 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly. I suspect part of the issue here is that people without some exposure to this type of probabilistic thinking are SO BAD at reasoning about market actors and uncertainty. "A ceasefire looks very unlikely, why they hell would anyone bet on that? That's very suspicious" is obviously a completely fucking idiotic statement to you and me ("why would you buy this ugly empty lot in Manhattan? There's no buildings on it!"). Maybe to a 25 year old Guardian journo with a history degree from Oxbridge it's just common sense.