A trader using the pseudonym AlphaRaccoon has reportedly netted a staggering $1.15 million in profits within 24 hours by placing bets on Google’s 2025 Year in Search rankings on the prediction market platform Polymarket. The trader’s wagers focused on specific queries, including whether the musician d4vd would secure the top position or if Pope Leo XIV would feature in the top five searches. Blockchain records indicate that these bets were placed shortly before Google released the relevant search data for the first time.
The recent activity is not an isolated incident for AlphaRaccoon. In November 2025, the trader earned over $150,000 by accurately predicting the launch date of Google’s Gemini 3.0 AI model. However, the recent bets on the 2025 Year in Search rankings appeared to be significantly more lucrative. Across 23 Google-related markets, AlphaRaccoon achieved an impressive 22 correct outcomes, including an almost 20-fold gain on the prediction that d4vd would emerge as the most searched individual of the year.
Insider Trading Allegations Arise
The series of successful trades has drawn scrutiny and accusations of insider trading. Haeju Jeong, a Polymarket trader and blockchain engineer, vocally criticized AlphaRaccoon on social media platform X, stating, “This isn’t a lucky streak. He’s a Google insider milking Polymarket for quick money.” Meanwhile, Polymarket’s own account highlighted the trader’s success, questioning, “Who is AlphaRaccoon?”
Despite the allegations, no concrete evidence has yet linked AlphaRaccoon to Google, and the trader has not publicly addressed the claims. The available evidence remains circumstantial, leaving the possibility of an investigation into these trades undefined from either Google or Polymarket.
Polymarket operates on a public and transparent blockchain ledger, which means that while the identity of AlphaRaccoon is pseudonymous, the transactions can be traced. This situation raises questions about the ethics of prediction markets, particularly in relation to insider trading.
Prediction Markets: A Double-Edged Sword
Critics argue that AlphaRaccoon’s trades represent a form of cheating, yet many proponents of prediction markets believe such instances are what these platforms aim to facilitate. Historically, prediction markets faced restrictions due to concerns about gambling addiction and the potential manipulation of public events. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 imposed significant limitations on online platforms, classifying many bets as unregulated futures and restricting payment processors from facilitating trades.
In response, some platforms, like Kalshi, have navigated regulatory challenges by obtaining oversight from the CFTC, positioning themselves as legitimate financial derivatives rather than gambling sites. Despite being fined by the CFTC in 2022 and halting services in the U.S., Polymarket is now aiming to re-establish its presence, particularly in sports betting, as regulatory conditions evolve under the current political climate.
Advocates of unrestricted prediction markets argue that they can enhance information verification by aggregating bets on specific claims, thereby helping to make social media discourse more accountable. They assert that if insiders participate in these markets, the resulting price adjustments could provide valuable insights to market observers. Yet, critics contend that these platforms primarily serve as avenues for gambling, where insiders maintain an unfair advantage.
As the debate continues, the implications of AlphaRaccoon’s trades highlight the complexities surrounding insider trading in prediction markets. While traditional finance strictly prohibits insider trading in stock markets, no explicit regulations govern participants on platforms like Polymarket. This creates potential loopholes for trading based on non-public information, circumventing the oversight of regulatory bodies like the SEC.
Instances of alleged insider trading in prediction markets are not new. Traders have faced scrutiny over bets related to events such as the Nobel Peace Prize winner announcements. Moreover, in the broader cryptocurrency landscape, there have been accusations of suspicious trades preceding significant announcements, such as acquisition deals by crypto exchanges.
The ongoing discourse raises critical questions about the role of cryptocurrency and prediction markets in the evolving financial landscape. Are these platforms genuinely facilitating democratized finance, or are they becoming tools for a new class of institutional insiders? As the situation unfolds, the need for clarity and regulation in this space becomes increasingly apparent.
