Polymarket is facing new scrutiny after reports said the prediction market platform paid online creators to publish deceptive videos showing fake bets and fake winnings, raising questions about influencer marketing, gambling-like content, and transparency in viral promotions.
Polymarket paid people to film themselves placing fake bets and celebrating fake wins on social media. Polymarket had been paying online creators to post deceptive videos showing lucrative-looking trades on the prediction market.
Fake Bets Were Presented as Real Wins
The reported campaign centered on videos that appeared to show creators making successful bets on Polymarket. But the bets were not real.
The Verge reported that the Wall Street Journal identified more than 1,100 deceptive clips and spoke with creators who confirmed they had been paid to make them.
The scale of the alleged deception was significant. In 118 videos, creators appeared to celebrate winning bets worth almost $900,000, even though those bets would have actually lost $166,000. That detail matters because the videos did not merely dramatize the idea of betting; they allegedly created the impression that creators were winning large amounts of money on outcomes that were not genuine.
Copycat Sites and a Social-Media Push
The reported videos also relied on visual tricks that made the fake activity look real at first glance. One video showed a creator visiting “poiymarket.com” instead of the real polymarket.com website.
TechCrunch reported that many of the videos were filmed on “near-perfect copies” of the Polymarket website, with trades and winnings that were not real.
The promotion was also reportedly coordinated beyond individual creators. The creator videos were amplified by a “social-media army” deployed by a marketing contractor. That detail suggests the issue was not only about isolated influencer posts, but about a broader promotional strategy designed to make Polymarket betting look viral and profitable.
Disclosure Questions Follow Creator Payments
The controversy also raises questions about whether viewers were properly told that the videos were paid promotions. The Wall Street Journal said Polymarket instructed creators not to specify that they had been paid by the company. Some creators began adding “@polymarket partner” to their bios after journalists started asking questions.
That distinction is important because creator marketing depends on trust. A viewer may interpret a video differently if it appears to be a real user’s personal experience rather than a paid advertisement. When the product involves prediction markets and financial-looking outcomes, the need for clear disclosure becomes even more serious.
Creators and Polymarket Respond
One creator defended the practice. Razeen Khan, a college student and creator who worked with Polymarket until March, compared the videos to commercials that make fast food look more appealing than it appears in real life. His argument frames the clips as advertising exaggeration rather than outright deception.
Polymarket has also responded to the allegations. Polymarket said it is committed to maintaining accurate, fair, and transparent markets and plans to audit its promotional content.
After the Journal began asking questions, many creators removed the videos from their accounts and Polymarket took down sites such as “poiymarket” that were allegedly used in the campaign.
Prediction Markets Face a Trust Problem
The controversy lands at a sensitive time for prediction markets, which are trying to move from niche internet betting culture into broader public discussion. These platforms often market themselves as tools for forecasting real-world outcomes, but their credibility depends heavily on transparency, accurate markets, and user trust.
If viral promotions make fake wins look real, the damage goes beyond one campaign. It can make users question whether the excitement around prediction markets is organic or manufactured. For Polymarket, the issue is therefore not only whether creators were paid. It is whether viewers were led to believe they were watching real people win real bets when the trades were allegedly staged.
