A Politico investigation has raised fresh questions about prediction market platform Polymarket’s marketing practices. The report published Friday said that the company’s Chief Marketing Officer, Matthew Modabber, sent over $2.5 million to more than 800 people through his personal PayPal account between January 2025 and February 2026.
A considerable portion of the funds, roughly $350,000, was spent on content creators and social media influencers. Approximately 20 influencers had the job of promoting Polymarket via over 490 posts on X (previously known as Twitter) without mentioning explicitly that these postings were made in return for payment.
That lack of disclosure is what’s now drawing the most attention, since audiences generally expect transparency when content is sponsored.
Influencers drive fast hype in crypto and prediction markets
Using influencer marketing per se is not uncommon, particularly in the rapidly evolving spaces such as cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. It makes sense for the companies to leverage creators for raising buzz and awareness and reaching out to people who do not necessarily follow financial news.
However, the drawback of this type of marketing strategy lies in the fact that it can only work effectively if there is full transparency regarding sponsorship, and otherwise, it would be very difficult for users to figure out whether they are reading an honest review or a paid advertisement.
The other thing about this case is that the funds have been paid via Polymarket founder’s personal PayPal account. Normally, companies conduct such expenses through official channels to ensure transparency and proper accounting, auditing, and tax purposes. That said, payments via personal PayPal accounts does not mean anything in itself.
In response to these allegations, the company came up with a statement stating that influencer marketing plays a critical role in their marketing strategy.
The company, however, failed to comment on why personal payment channels were used, whether the influencers were supposed to disclose that they were sponsored, and how the payments were accounted for taxation purposes.
The extent of the activity is another factor making the story unique; 800 recipients indicate a wide-reaching decentralized influencer program as opposed to a concentrated one.
This creates problems when ensuring consistency in message control and disclosures because most of the creators post on their own accounts regularly.
Investigation highlights rising tension over influencer-driven digital marketing
Ultimately, the case under review reflects an emerging dilemma currently existing in the sphere of digital marketing. First, there is a desire for instant and extensive publicity generated by influential figures capable of driving discussions online.
Secondly, there are the needs for transparency expressed by both regulators and the audience interested in seeing clear disclosures and ethical financial arrangements.
Although no misconduct was found, this particular case raises troubling questions regarding the process of planning and implementation of such marketing campaigns.
In addition, as the Polymarket platform becomes increasingly popular and moves closer to mainstream, the stakes for accountability also increase.
