Litentryの‌価格LIT

It looks like Lighter insiders may be influencing Polymarket odds ahead of the $LIT TGE and the on-chain behavior raises real questions. Several large YES positions on the “Lighter airdrop before Dec 31” market were taken by newly created wallets, funded within days, each deploying six-figure size. Multiple wallets were funded from the same centralized exchange source, strongly suggesting a single controller splitting exposure. At first glance, this could be written off as a whale using multiple wallets. But the pattern deepens. One older wallet that entered the market much earlier was funded via a bridge from another wallet that also has historical links to a large depositor into Lighter itself. That depositor wallet moved significant funds into Lighter before any public announcements, before deposits were opened, and before invite-only access was known. That timing matters. Funds were positioned before the private beta, before mainnet deposit announcements, and before the broader market had access. That narrows the possibilities to internal use, early partners, or insiders with advance knowledge. More recently, additional fresh wallets began funding large NO positions, again shortly after receiving funds from exchanges. Since then, odds have shifted noticeably. Either these are extremely confident gamblers or they know something about delays the public doesn’t. This highlights a structural issue with prediction markets. You’re not betting against vibes or sentiment. You’re betting against participants who may have direct access to timelines, contracts, and internal decisions. That asymmetry is dangerous. Even if the outcome still favors a TGE before year-end, the presence of insider-aligned capital undermines market integrity. If this behavior becomes normalized, prediction markets risk doing long-term damage to crypto credibility far beyond what meme platforms ever did. Bottom line: Be careful where you place capital. In markets like this, information not probability is the real edge.

It looks like Lighter insiders may be influencing Polymarket odds ahead of the $LIT TGE and the on-chain behavior raises real questions. Several large YES positions on the “Lighter airdrop before Dec 31” market were taken by newly created wallets, funded within days, each deploying six-figure size. Multiple wallets were funded from the same centralized exchange source, strongly suggesting a single controller splitting exposure. At first glance, this could be written off as a whale using multiple wallets. But the pattern deepens. One older wallet that entered the market much earlier was funded via a bridge from another wallet that also has historical links to a large depositor into Lighter itself. That depositor wallet moved significant funds into Lighter before any public announcements, before deposits were opened, and before invite-only access was known. That timing matters. Funds were positioned before the private beta, before mainnet deposit announcements, and before the broader market had access. That narrows the possibilities to internal use, early partners, or insiders with advance knowledge. More recently, additional fresh wallets began funding large NO positions, again shortly after receiving funds from exchanges. Since then, odds have shifted noticeably. Either these are extremely confident gamblers or they know something about delays the public doesn’t. This highlights a structural issue with prediction markets. You’re not betting against vibes or sentiment. You’re betting against participants who may have direct access to timelines, contracts, and internal decisions. That asymmetry is dangerous. Even if the outcome still favors a TGE before year-end, the presence of insider-aligned capital undermines market integrity. If this behavior becomes normalized, prediction markets risk doing long-term damage to crypto credibility far beyond what meme platforms ever did. Bottom line: Be careful where you place capital. In markets like this, information not probability is the real edge.

It looks like Lighter insiders may be influencing Polymarket odds ahead of the $LIT TGE and the on-chain behavior raises real questions. Here’s the simplified version, without addresses: Several large YES positions on the “Lighter airdrop before Dec 31” market were taken by newly created wallets, funded within days, each deploying six-figure size. Multiple wallets were funded from the same centralized exchange source, strongly suggesting a single controller splitting exposure. At first glance, this could be written off as a whale using multiple wallets. But the pattern deepens. One older wallet that entered the market much earlier was funded via a bridge from another wallet that also has historical links to a large depositor into Lighter itself. That depositor wallet moved significant funds into Lighter before any public announcements, before deposits were opened, and before invite-only access was known. That timing matters. Funds were positioned before the private beta, before mainnet deposit announcements, and before the broader market had access. That narrows the possibilities to internal use, early partners, or insiders with advance knowledge. More recently, additional fresh wallets began funding large NO positions, again shortly after receiving funds from exchanges. Since then, odds have shifted noticeably. Either these are extremely confident gamblers or they know something about delays the public doesn’t. This highlights a structural issue with prediction markets. You’re not betting against vibes or sentiment. You’re betting against participants who may have direct access to timelines, contracts, and internal decisions. That asymmetry is dangerous. Even if the outcome still favors a TGE before year-end, the presence of insider-aligned capital undermines market integrity. If this behavior becomes normalized, prediction markets risk doing long-term damage to crypto credibility far beyond what meme platforms ever did. Bottom line: Be careful where you place capital. In markets like this, information not probability is the real edge. $POL $USDC

On-chain narratives: UNI burned 100M tokens (~$596M) after the fee-switch proposal passed; XAUT followed gold to a new ATH near $4,550; CC jumped 22% on Canton’s new CIP-56 privacy-token standard; LIT’s founder said recent large transfers are unrelated to airdrops; LayerZero’s fee-activation vote failed $UNI $BTC $BGB