P2P.me has admitted that it traded on a Polymarket contract linked to its own fundraising round before the raise officially launched.
The team said it opened positions about 10 days before the funding round went live. The market question was simple: would the project raise $6 million?
At that time, the team said it only had an informal $3 million commitment from Multicoin Capital, with no signed agreements and no confirmed full funding.
Later, the fundraising round closed at $5.2 million—below the target. Because of that, the Polymarket contract resolved to “no.”
The team said it understands why this situation has raised trust concerns, even though it claims it did not trade on a completed deal. It also admitted that failing to disclose the activity earlier was a mistake.
P2P.me added that any profits from the trades will be returned to its DAO treasury, which manages the platform’s funds. The team also said it is closing all open positions on Polymarket and introducing a formal policy for how prediction markets can be used in the future.
They summed up their stance by saying that trading on an outcome you can influence can damage trust, and that the lack of disclosure at the time was wrong.
This incident is now drawing attention because prediction markets are already under increased scrutiny.
In United States Congress, lawmakers have introduced new proposals like the PREDICT Act, which aims to prevent insider trading by government officials on prediction platforms.
At the same time, major platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi have started tightening their own rules. These updates restrict trading when users have insider information or can influence outcomes.
Some U.S. states have also taken action, banning officials from using confidential information to place bets on prediction markets.
There is also a separate push in Congress to restrict certain types of event contracts altogether, including those related to elections and government actions.
In short, this case is adding fuel to a bigger debate: how to keep prediction markets fair when traders might have inside access or influence over real-world outcomes.
