Iran strike bets spark scrutiny, calls for bans on prediction markets after trader reportedly pockets $500K before news broke

In the hours leading up to the strike, users on prediction market platforms including Polymarket and Kalshi placed bets on both the timing of a potential military attack and the political fate of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. After the strike was announced, one trader reportedly made more than $500,000 in a single day wagering on when it would occur (2).

“It appears that a Polymarket account called ‘Magamyman’ made $515,000 in a single day betting on last night's U.S. strike on Iran, with the first trade placed 71 minutes before the news broke publicly,” Democratic Rep. Mike Levin of California wrote on X Sunday (3). “We need answers, transparency and oversight.”

How prediction markets work

Prediction markets are online platforms where people trade on the outcome of future events. Instead of placing a traditional bet, users buy and sell contracts based on how likely they think something is to happen.

Trading tied to the Iran conflict appeared on the two largest platforms, Polymarket and Kalshi, but the outcome played out differently for users on each site.

Kalshi, a U.S.-based exchange regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, offered a market asking whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would remain in power (4). Because federal rules prohibit contracts directly tied to an individual’s death, the company closed the market before formally resolving the outcome. Instead of issuing full payouts, Kalshi reimbursed trading fees and settled positions based on market odds at the time trading stopped.

The decision frustrated some traders, who had expected winning bets to pay out in full following the strike. Those who correctly predicted Khamenei would be out of power ultimately received smaller returns than they would have if the market had officially resolved to “yes.”

Polymarket hosted similar markets but allowed users to speculate more directly on the timing of a potential military strike. The cryptocurrency-based platform operates outside U.S. regulatory oversight, facing fewer structural restrictions. Markets tied to armed conflict are especially sensitive, as trading activity can intersect with non-public or classified information about military operations.

Supporters argue that prediction markets can still serve a useful purpose. By pooling the views of thousands of participants, they say, markets can generate accurate forecasts.

But economists like Jonathan Wright, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, say accuracy depends heavily on what’s being traded. Prediction markets tend to work better when underlying information is limited and tightly controlled, such as government economic data.

“In macroeconomic data, the information is very tightly held within government agencies and realistically, nobody who actually knows that information is going to be trading on prediction markets,” Wright told Moneywise. “It is very unlikely that somebody is going to waste money trying to distort prices. With geopolitical events, there could be a deep-pocketed investor trying to move prices, and the nature of the information is much more diffuse.”

Critics argue that when markets are tied to war or political violence, the stakes shift, turning global crises into potential profit opportunities.

“It’s insane this is legal,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) wrote in a post on X (5). “People around Trump are profiting off war and death. I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this.”

What the rise of prediction markets means for investors

The controversy surrounding the Iran-linked trades is unfolding against the backdrop of explosive growth in prediction markets.

Between January and October 2025 alone, these platforms generated more than $27.9 billion in trading volume, with weekly activity hitting record highs, including $2.3 billion in a single week in October, according to data from Crypto.com (6).

But the industry’s rapid expansion has brought in resistance.

Sports leagues, including the NFL, have raised concerns to Congress about event-based contracts that resemble sports betting but operate outside state regulatory systems.

“We are particularly troubled that several sports-related futures contracts have been launched nationwide, including in jurisdictions where sports betting has not been legalized,” Jeff Miller, the NFL’s executive vice president, wrote in a written testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture in mid-December (7).