Blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps has pushed back against claims that a big Polymarket bet on Nicolás Maduro’s removal was linked to a cofounder of World Liberty Financial (WLFI). The firm says the on-chain evidence being shared online is misleading and overblown.
The controversy started around a Polymarket prediction asking whether Venezuela’s president would be removed from power by a certain deadline. Just hours before reports surfaced about Maduro’s capture, several newly created accounts placed heavy “Yes” bets, turning about $60,000 into more than $630,000.
One wallet stood out. It reportedly turned around $32,000 into nearly $400,000. Because the wallet was funded through Coinbase deposits on Solana and Ethereum, people began speculating that the trader had access to inside information.
An on-chain analyst later claimed this wallet might be connected to WLFI. The claim was based on a 250 SOL Coinbase deposit that looked similar to transfers linked to wallets allegedly associated with WLFI and name references like “Steven Charles” across ENS and SNS domains.
But Bubblemaps says this logic doesn’t hold up.
In a post on X dated January 5, Bubblemaps said that matching wallets based on timing and similar amounts is not reliable proof. According to the firm, a one-day gap between deposits going into and out of an exchange is meaningless on its own—especially when only one asset is being looked at.
When Bubblemaps expanded the analysis to include USDC and ETH, it found around 20 different wallets that matched the same timing and value pattern using the exact same assumptions.
The firm also pointed out that exchange deposits can come from many sources, like bank transfers, multiple smaller transactions, or even old balances being moved much later. None of these factors were considered in the viral claims.
Calling the alleged connection a “99% match,” Bubblemaps said, is pure clickbait. Shared exchange routes and similar naming styles do not prove wallet ownership or coordination.
While Bubblemaps admitted that the timing of the Polymarket trades is unusual, it warned that poor analysis can be used to support almost any story if the framing is aggressive enough.
The firm urged the crypto community to focus on real evidence, not hype-driven narratives—especially when politics and high-profile crypto projects are involved.
So far, neither Polymarket nor WLFI has released any internal findings, and there is no known formal investigation into the matter.
