Polymarket volume climbs ahead of ZachXBT Feb 26 report

What we know: ZachXBT’s Feb 26 insider trading allegations

According to Whale-Alert, on February 23, 2026, onchain investigator ZachXBT said he plans to publish a major investigation on February 26 into “one of crypto’s most profitable businesses,” alleging that multiple employees abused internal data to insider trade over a prolonged period. The post frames the core issue as potential misuse of material nonpublic information (MNPI) by insiders. No company has been named by the investigator as of this writing, and no third-party verification has been presented in public reporting cited so far.

Insider trading in digital-asset markets generally refers to trading while in possession of MNPI obtained through a position of trust or access, such as undisclosed product plans, listings, treasury actions, or user metrics. The allegation described centers on the provenance of information and whether any employees leveraged privileged access for personal gain. Until the underlying evidence set is disclosed, the scope, methods, and any implicated entities remain unconfirmed.

Immediate impact: Polymarket betting and WLFI denial

As reported by BeInCrypto, a speculative market on Polymarket saw more than $2.2 million traded within hours as participants wagered on which company might be identified in the forthcoming report. Market positioning of this kind reflects sentiment rather than proof and may shift rapidly as new information emerges or is interpreted by participants.

World Liberty Financial (WLFI) issued a categorical denial after being mentioned in community speculation. In an editorial explanation preceding management’s statement, the firm emphasized its structure and asserted that it lacks the type of internal order data typically associated with exchange-based misconduct. “These allegations are malicious nonsense. WLFI is a governance token project, not an exchange,” said Zach Witkoff, CEO, at WLFI, according to Coinness.

While the architecture defense addresses one common pathway for MNPI (order flow or order-book visibility), insider trading risks can also arise from other privileged datasets or undisclosed corporate actions. The relevance of WLFI’s rationale will depend on whether the forthcoming investigation presents transaction-level evidence, corroborating documents, and a clear link between any insider access and trading activity.

What’s unconfirmed and how to read speculation

The identity of any target remains unverified until the investigator publishes the full report. Polymarket odds and social media threads are not evidentiary; they indicate what traders believe might happen, not what has been demonstrated. As reported by CryptoBriefing, the anticipated publication focuses on alleged misuse of confidential data for profit, but no regulator or independent auditor has publicly validated the claims described to date.

When evaluating the report once released, readers can separate facts from inference by checking for time-stamped wallet activity, reproducible on-chain traces, and documentation that links any employee access to specific trades. Interpreting causality in on-chain analytics often requires showing both the flow of funds and the informational advantage; without that chain, conclusions should remain provisional. Given the financial implications, measured assessment is warranted until primary materials and any responses from named entities are available.