Polymarket Arbitrage: $40M Profits Expose Decentralized Prediction Market Vulnerabilities

Photo of author

By Jason Walker

A recent academic study has uncovered a substantial arbitrage exploitation on Polymarket, a decentralized prediction market platform, revealing nearly $40 million in profits generated by sophisticated traders within a single year. The research highlights how automated strategies capitalized on transient mispricings, particularly within high-volume political prediction markets such as the 2024 U.S. elections, underscoring systemic vulnerabilities in decentralized betting ecosystems.

  • Researchers from the IMDEA Networks Institute analyzed 86 million bets on Polymarket between April 2024 and April 2025.
  • A small cohort of sophisticated traders, often employing bot-like programs, consistently generated risk-free profits.
  • Arbitrage opportunities arise from temporary market inefficiencies where aggregate probabilities for an event can exceed 100%.
  • Political prediction markets, particularly the 2024 U.S. elections, proved to be the most lucrative for these strategies.
  • The study raises critical questions about the long-term viability and fairness of decentralized prediction platforms.

Research Methodology and Key Findings

The findings stem from a comprehensive study by researchers from the IMDEA Networks Institute, published on arXiv in August 2025. Their analysis scrutinized an extensive dataset of 86 million bets placed across various Polymarket categories between April 2024 and April 2025. This research indicates that a small cohort of highly active participants, often employing bot-like programs, consistently generated risk-free returns by exploiting temporary inefficiencies in the platform’s market-driven odds. The top three wallets identified by the study, for instance, collectively netted approximately $4.2 million from over 10,200 bets during this period.

Understanding Arbitrage on Polymarket

Polymarket’s operational model, which relies on market forces rather than a central authority to determine event odds, inadvertently creates these arbitrage opportunities. Participants buy “shares” in future outcomes, priced between $0.01 and $1, corresponding to a 1% to 100% implied probability. While the sum of all potential outcomes in an event should ideally total 100%, short-term market fluctuations can cause aggregate probabilities to temporarily exceed this threshold. This “extra margin” allows traders to simultaneously buy and sell opposing outcomes for a guaranteed profit, a classic arbitrage strategy.

Types of Arbitrage Identified

The study identified two primary types of arbitrage: within a single market due to mismatched probabilities, and across multiple markets where the outcome of one preliminary event impacts related wagers.

Lucrative Markets and Profit Margins

Politically related prediction markets, particularly those concerning the 2024 U.S. elections, proved to be the most lucrative for these arbitrage strategies. An analysis by Dune Analytics indicated that monthly betting volume on Polymarket during the election period surpassed $2.6 billion, providing fertile ground for exploiting price discrepancies. While sports markets offered a greater number of individual arbitrage opportunities, the overall profit potential in political wagers was significantly higher. Most arbitrage trades yielded gains between 1% and 5%, though the study noted rare instances of extreme inefficiency, such as one participant generating nearly $59,000 from a minimal $0.02 investment in opposing shares.

Implications for Decentralized Prediction Platforms

The persistence of such exploits raises critical questions about the long-term viability and fairness of decentralized prediction platforms. As these platforms continue to gain popularity and attract larger betting volumes, the sophistication and prevalence of arbitrage strategies are expected to increase, mirroring trends observed in the broader decentralized finance (DeFi) sector. The study serves as a critical examination of how market design within decentralized environments can inadvertently create avenues for systematic exploitation, potentially eroding user trust and impacting the perceived integrity of these emerging financial ecosystems.

Share