Most of the trading volume on ADI Predictstreet, the official prediction market platform for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, has been generated by cryptocurrency wallets reportedly linked to the company itself, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Trading Activity Concentrated in Few Wallets
By the end of September, $108 million out of $167 million in trading volume on ADI Predictstreet was attributed to these wallets. Since late August, they accounted for 99% of all trading activity, with transactions occurring almost exclusively between the wallets in question. This pattern led WSJ to describe the volume as largely artificial.
Blockchain Analysis Reveals Wallet Connections
According to the report, 795 wallets were funded from a single address, which also receives the platform's trading commissions—typically collected by the platform owner. This finding was made by three Harvard students analyzing publicly available blockchain data. During the World Cup, just two connected wallets executed trades exceeding $81 million.
Regulatory Review Finds No User Harm
The Gibraltar regulator, responsible for overseeing the platform's licensing, conducted a preliminary review. It found no violations or harm to users as a result of these trading practices. ADI Predictstreet did not respond to media inquiries, and FIFA declined to comment.
Why This Matters for Industry Stakeholders
The revelation raises questions about the transparency and integrity of trading volumes on prediction market platforms, which could impact operator credibility and user trust. For regulators, it highlights the importance of monitoring trading patterns for potential manipulation, even when user harm is not immediately evident. Affiliates and suppliers may also need to consider reputational risks when partnering with platforms under scrutiny.
Key takeaways
- Majority of ADI Predictstreet trading volume linked to company-associated wallets
- WSJ and blockchain analysis suggest trading was largely artificial
- Gibraltar regulator found no user harm after a preliminary review
- Transparency and trust in prediction markets under increased scrutiny