What the posts showed, and what the accounts held

Also true

• The profit is real for that profile, the leaderboard states it correctly, and the handle told readers to track it (‘i usually post my main bets and u can always track my polymarket page’, 2025-12-26).
• Which leg of a pair wins cannot be chosen in advance: the katelv leg was the dearer one in 32 of 65 pairs and won 38, within what chance gives, so the record does not show that wins were steered to the visible profile.
• The four profiles have four different owner keys; butzki and gracechase never appear in the handle’s posts; heooo’s owner key was given as a wallet by the handle once and by a second X handle 16 times. That the opposite legs belong to the same purse rests on the money links (transfers between the keys in both directions, $17,906.32 between the heooo and katelv keys and wallets; a common exchange deposit address; the run of remainder transfers of 2026-03-05) and, for heooo, on the handle’s own words; it is an inference, not a key. A group of people who pool money would leave the same record.
• Not every loss of the three profiles is the other side of a katelv position (for heooo the pairs are 27.5 % of its positions).
• The handle reported losses in public (‘had over 10k all time high pnl and was on a loosing break’, 2026-01-30; ‘i just lost a big ass $1800 trade’, 2026-08-02) and showed seven negative profit widgets.
• When the copy invitation of April 2026 was posted, none of the 18 positions posted in those months was paired; the profit it advertises was made in the paired months. The handle had described the two-account volume method in a public reply on 2025-10-16.
• The group result over the whole history (21 accounts) differs in definition from the 2025-10-25 to 2026-09-30 figures of stated separately (twelve accounts); the two are kept apart. Curve points are daily values at 00:00 UTC.

Also true

• The handle said ‘five wallets’, listed two losing ones, and had shown the Tailgate account’s stats card on 2026-06-25; the Tailgate account’s last World Cup trade was on 2026-06-26, three weeks before the tally.
• With the tool’s own figures the total stays positive even with the Tailgate account (about +$275 including the $300 prize). The tool’s method is not published; for the Bagel wallet it shows -$210.34 where the fills give -$633.18, a gap of $422.84 that fees do not explain; the other four cards agree with the fills within $53.
• The handle’s earlier statements (‘i believe i just crossed $2,000 in profits trading the world cup’, 2026-07-03; ‘around $2,5-$3k’, 2026-07-13) match no combination of the identified accounts (those in profit sum to +$1,151.41 and +$1,051.35) but cannot be shown false: the handle named a wallet that is not identified (‘vision wallet’, 2026-07-22).
• 1,000 USDC of the Firefly stake came from Firefly’s hub wallet on 2026-07-03 and the $300 from Firefly’s prize wallet; the $300 is part of the 347.98 PUSD of prizes separately and is not counted twice.
• The same post says the handle was ‘doing some paid deals’ while trading these wallets.

Also true

• Both accounts were on the same side (Over): this is not a hedge, and no fill between them exists.
• The handle did not present the small win as its result: five minutes before the large block was sold it told its readers ‘Looks like this over will not happen’ (20:52:45 UTC), and it posted no result of a bet on either match.
• What the post showed was the size: the $700 card was a real position, and the post did not say it was the whole stake.
• It is one night, not a standing practice: after 2026-07-05 the only positions found on the other accounts are two of $10.00 (2026-07-24) and one of $227.07 (2026-08-20), plus 1,831.67 dollars of buys on the app wallet on 2026-09-26 and 2026-09-27, while the public profile bought for 203,167.01 dollars up to 2026-09-28.
• From the moment the public profile record existed the other wallets opened 8 positions costing 102,016.55 (result +16,943.22); one more, 10,008.41 on ‘Paraguay vs. France: O/U 1.5’, was opened and lost in the hour before the profile record was created.
• Two days later (2026-07-07) the handle wrote of its results ‘around the same across multiple accounts net net’, and on 2026-07-11 that it has ‘Like 7’ accounts.
• ‘-.-x’ has its own owner key (0x7de5ea7dd428cbc1df8680b45c9fbdcb7c2e1879 (opens in a new tab)) and no image of it was ever posted; it is tied to the handle by the money route only: funded only from the public profile, winnings withdrawn to the key the handle had linked as ‘My collection’ on 2024-06-24, 89,171.42 paid from that key into the public profile 42 minutes later, and its last 60.00 sent to the same key on 2026-09-28.
• Splitting a stake across accounts has ordinary reasons (size on a watched profile, order size, rebates per wallet); the handle had said it did not want copy traders, and the large order carried DG3’s builder code on the wallet DG3’s public table lists under the username itskkoma2.
• The card is read from the image of the post of 19:52:12 UTC (‘itskkoma / Over / Cost $700 / Odds 57% / To win $1,229’); the post text itself names no stake.

Also true

• The handle said in words that it loses, more than once: ‘this is my main account, and yeah, it’s in the red right now’ (2025-11-11, when the linked profile stood at about -72 dollars), ‘of course i’ve had losing picks too ... i’ve had to rebuild my deposit twice’ (2026-01-26), ‘i blew up twice’ (2026-01-27), ‘I post a lot of screenshots with profits, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg ... plenty of losses along the way’ (2026-07-19).
• Its Telegram channel marked missed picks with crosses and once showed a large loss with its figure while the position was open (Travaglia at -424.09 on 2026-05-04; it ended at -539.44). What was not posted on X is the amounts.
• No deleted losing slip was found (see the deleted-posts entry).
• The visible profile shows its loss: Polymarket’s profit figure for lolxdkek is -3,205.29, public on its profile.
• ‘≈ $700’ is the before-fee figure the Bagel app shows (see the Bagel-figures entry).
• The statements about the ‘new acc’ were true or close when made: Polymarket’s profit series for iluvdubnation reads +1,357.96 at the post of 2026-05-01 (‘$1,000+ in 8 days’) and +1,510.73 at the reply of 2026-04-28 (‘+$2k for now’; the series had peaked at +2,169.64 the evening before); the account ended at -724.20.
• The closed-positions list of lostnpeace and iluvdubnation sums to +4,413.95 and +2,419.83 because Polymarket leaves unredeemed losers out of that list for every account; nobody is shown to have cited it.
• The count of shown positions depends on the reading of the images (172 to 186 winners) and on the images kept in the record (90% of the handle’s posts are in the table). Polymarket’s profit chart leaves fees out and sums to about -4,350 for the five accounts (chart values read on 2026-10-02, not a rebuilt result).
• Posting wins more often than losses is a common habit; the entry states the pattern, not an intent.
• The figures include a 4.92-dollar position of the Bagel wallet that resolved as a loss at 2026-10-01 12:14:42 UTC, before the cut-off; one position (cost 5.18) was still open.

Also true

• The handle said in words that it loses, more than once: ‘this is my main account, and yeah, it’s in the red right now’ (2025-11-11, when the linked profile stood at about -72 dollars), ‘of course i’ve had losing picks too ... i’ve had to rebuild my deposit twice’ (2026-01-26), ‘i blew up twice’ (2026-01-27), ‘I post a lot of screenshots with profits, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg ... plenty of losses along the way’ (2026-07-19).
• Its Telegram channel marked missed picks with crosses and once showed a large loss with its figure while the position was open (Travaglia at -424.09 on 2026-05-04; it ended at -539.44). What was not posted on X is the amounts.
• No deleted losing slip was found (see the deleted-posts entry).
• The visible profile shows its loss: Polymarket’s profit figure for lolxdkek is -3,205.29, public on its profile.
• ‘≈ $700’ is the before-fee figure the Bagel app shows (see the Bagel-figures entry).
• The statements about the ‘new acc’ were true or close when made: Polymarket’s profit series for iluvdubnation reads +1,357.96 at the post of 2026-05-01 (‘$1,000+ in 8 days’) and +1,510.73 at the reply of 2026-04-28 (‘+$2k for now’; the series had peaked at +2,169.64 the evening before); the account ended at -724.20.
• The closed-positions list of lostnpeace and iluvdubnation sums to +4,413.95 and +2,419.83 because Polymarket leaves unredeemed losers out of that list for every account; nobody is shown to have cited it.
• The count of shown positions depends on the reading of the images (172 to 186 winners) and on the images kept in the record (90% of the handle’s posts are in the table). Polymarket’s profit chart leaves fees out and sums to about -4,350 for the five accounts (chart values read on 2026-10-02, not a rebuilt result).
• Posting wins more often than losses is a common habit; the entry states the pattern, not an intent.
• The figures include a 4.92-dollar position of the Bagel wallet that resolved as a loss at 2026-10-01 12:14:42 UTC, before the cut-off; one position (cost 5.18) was still open.

Also true

• The channel did show one of the two losses of 4 May: a photo of the Travaglia position at -$424.09 with the words ‘a good reminder to manage your size more carefully’, fourteen minutes after a message ‘sold Travaglia’.
• The withdrawal on the screenshot of 4 May (3,002.00) was real, made on 2026-04-27, when the account had paid out 397.97 more than had been paid in; so ‘withdrew with profit’ was true of the week before. ‘Keep just $150’ matches no balance: the account held 0.10 dollars and received 1,035.13 the next morning.
• Those channel messages had 100 to 120 views. The record does not show who followed a pick; no loss of a follower is stated.
• The Sinner post of 2026-04-28 (‘I placed $10,675 to win $156 ... It feels like a free money’) describes a real position that won 139.53; the 9,292.30 that paid for it arrived 78 seconds before the buy and 9,300.00 left 162 seconds after the sale, to the exchange address the other accounts use, and the same sum went in and out twice more that day. That is the holder moving its own money in for single bets: context, not misconduct.
• The ‘new acc’ was shown openly as the handle’s account, and the handle’s reply of 2026-04-28 (‘+$2k for now’) was close to the account’s chart at that moment (+1,510.73).

Also true

• The handle posted its losses in aggregate and often: -$2,704.06 (‘PnL is down only ... By the way someone is me’, 2026-02-12), -$4,501 (2026-03-10), -$6,300 (2026-03-28), a day of -$23,061.46 and down $25,000 from a peak of about $45,000 (2026-04-02), ‘i took a needed break from trading on Polymarket due to big losses’ (2026-04-19), ‘-$3,200’ for a losing streak (2026-06-13), ‘i lost the whole bankroll’ (2026-07-17) and ‘still net negative’ (2026-08-04). What it did not show is this account and the size of its loss.
• On 2026-05-29 the handle posted a market link carrying the referral name r=Uiom, and Uiom’s profile is public.
• The winnings on the two claim cards the handle posted (‘Claim $22,358.24’ on 2026-03-31, ‘Claim 37,597.79’ on 2026-04-01) were real. The public figure of the visible profile is accurate for that account (-8,112.34 dollars by cash).
• A comparison of single positions (113 positions shown one by one made +34,478.31 dollars, the 442 others lost 52,623.83) leaves out the aggregate loss cards above and is not a measure of what was disclosed; 36 of its matches rest on a market name without a figure.
• The two credits of 292.802 dollars that the handle asked followers about on 2026-04-19 (‘i found $585.6 on my account however i didn’t make any deposits’) were labelled ‘Deposited funds’, with no source, in the app screen it posted. They are best read as the referral payout for Uiom’s largest fee day, 2026-04-04 (30% of 950.62 = 285.19, plus about 7.6 from other referrals), paid two weeks late and twice. Asked whether it matched referral volume, the handle answered ‘nope, no referral volume yesterday’, which was true; nothing shows that it knew where the money came from.
• That Uiom is the handle’s referral is inferred from the two exact 30% matches; the referral relation itself is not public. Polymarket’s referral help page (archived 2026-03-24, before Uiom existed) reserves the right to disqualify self-referrals; nothing shows that Polymarket did so.
• Referral income is ordinary programme income and is context here, not the accusation: of the 894.51 dollars of referral rewards, up to 861.27 arrived on days tied to Uiom’s trading if the payout that came twice is counted twice.
• Komacsi’s -787.96 predates the handle’s Polymarket posts. Two-sided betting between the accounts was tested and not found.