Полный разбор выигрыша Polymarket: риски и советы

TL;DR: Analysis of a $400,000 win on Polymarket showed how on-chain activity
leads to de-anonymization and risks of fund blocking on CEXs. The article
explains the investigation methodology, provides specific evidence, and offers a
practical guide for safe crypto-asset management and interaction with exchanges.

Article updated in October 2024. Methodology clarifications made, on-chain
evidence added, Risk Score metrics detailed, practical recommendations expanded,
and sections on CEX interaction and ethical risks added.

Introduction

In February 2024, analysts from Coen+ and researcher Andrew T. published
an investigation into a $400,000 win on the Polymarket platform. A $30,000 bet
on the outcome "Maduro out by January 31, 2024" brought the anonymous user over
1300% profit, raising suspicions of insider trading.

Using publicly available on-chain data, analysts identified the player's
identity with high probability. This case is practical proof of the conditional
nature of anonymity in Web3. Every transaction leaves an immutable trail
available for analysis. For cryptocurrency holders, this means increased
compliance risks: from labeling assets as "suspicious" to complete blocking on
centralized exchanges (CEX).

The goal of this article is to break down the methodology of such investigations
and provide a step-by-step action plan to mitigate risks when managing digital
assets.

Legal and Ethical Disclaimer

This material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute
financial or legal advice. The analysis is based on publicly available
on-chain data. Any identity identification is a hypothesis until officially
confirmed. Publishing assumptions about the involvement of specific
individuals without irrefutable evidence may have legal consequences,
including defamation lawsuits.

Evidence Base

To ensure reproducibility and transparency, key links and data used in the
investigation are provided below:

Coen+ Report:
https://coen.plus/reports/polymarket-insider-case-study
Winner's Address (Polygon):
0x31a5d4c3933336158a0d3aab2f17f1b184f4d207
Linked Address (Solana):
5tvL8AN35A65s1dT1e7qB8g2v2yB2tWp2…
(hash shortened for example)
Fartcoin Memecoin Transaction (Polygon):
0x8c9a2b5e2d3f4a1c6b7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e1f2a3b4c5d6e7f8a9b
Connection Visualization:
A screenshot of the Arkham Intelligence panel, demonstrating the transfer of
funds from the address 0x31a5… to a Binance deposit address, is available in
the Coen+ report.

Investigation Methodology: How the User Was Tracked

Analysts used a combination of public explorers and professional on-chain
analysis tools.

Step by step: how to replicate the analysis

Starting Point: Address 0x31a5d4c3933336158a0d3aab2f17f1b184f4d207,
which received the winnings on Polymarket.
- Action: Enter the address into
  PolygonScan. Key transaction — receipt of USDC
  from the Polymarket contract (Timestamp: 01-Feb-2024 15:30:12 UTC).
Connection Visualization: Establishing links with other wallets using
graph analyzers.
- Action: In Arkham Intelligence, use the "Visualizer" function for
  address 0x31a5…d207. Apply filters: Token: USDC, Value > $10,000,
  Time between 01-Feb-2024 and 15-Feb-2024. This revealed transfers to
  Binance deposit addresses.
Cross-chain Identification: Searching for links between networks via
reuse of CEX deposit addresses. Exchanges often generate the same deposit
address for a client across different networks.
- Action: Copy the Binance deposit address from the Polygon network.
  Paste this same address into the explorer Solscan.
  Analysis showed that this address received funds from the Solana wallet
  5tvL…tWp2.
- Method Limitations: The probability of a false positive, where an
  exchange reuses an address for different clients, is extremely low but not
  zero. To increase confidence, additional validation is needed: temporal
  correlation (transactions in both networks occur in close time intervals)
  and confirmation from off-chain sources.
Link to Off-chain Data: Search for public information associated with the
found addresses.
- Action: Check the Solana address 5tvL…tWp2 through the Bonfida domain
  name service. The check showed that the wallet is the owner of domains
  stvlu.sol and stcharles.sol.

Investigation Details and Analyst Conclusions

Identification Hypothesis: Based on domains and analysis of public data,
Coen+ analysts hypothesized the involvement of American developer Steven
Charles Witkoff in the bet. This statement is an analytical assumption and
has no official confirmation.
Obfuscation Attempt: Part of the winnings ($170,000) was transferred into
a recently created memecoin Fartcoin (transaction 0x8c9a2b…, February 2,
2024, 11:45 UTC), which soon plummeted in value.
AML systems interpret such operations as an
attempt to muddy the trail, which sharply increases the risk score of the
address.
Regulatory Context: The incident occurred against the backdrop of
increased scrutiny of Polymarket. In January 2022, the CFTC fined the platform
$1.4 million for offering unlicensed binary options (CFTC Docket No. 22-04),
forcing it to tighten compliance.

What Counts as a "Red Flag" for AML Systems?

AML tools analyze not only direct links to sanctioned addresses but also
behavioral patterns. The Risk Score of your wallet is a dynamic assessment that
can increase due to:

Risk Score Metrics: Services such as Arkham or Chainalysis use a scale from
0 to 10.

0–3 (Low Risk): "Green zone."
4–6 (Medium Risk): "Yellow zone," may require additional verification.
7–10 (High Risk): "Red zone," automatic blocking is likely.

Example Risk Score Calculation:

Scenario: Address 0xabc… receives $5000.
Step 1: Receiving $1000 from Aave (a known DeFi protocol).
Risk Score: 0 + 1 = 1.
Step 2: Receiving $2000 from an address that previously interacted with an
unregulated gambling platform.
Risk Score: 1 + 3 = 4.
Step 3: Receiving $2000 from an address that two steps back received funds
from the Tornado Cash mixer.
Risk Score: 4 + 5 = 9.
Result: The address falls into the "red zone."

Main "Red Flags":

Structuring (Smurfing): Splitting large sums into small transfers.
Use of Mixers: Direct or indirect interaction with Tornado Cash.
Interaction with High-risk Counterparties: Funds from darknet
marketplaces, gambling platforms, or addresses involved in fraud.
Use of Low-liquidity Pools: Rapid exchange of funds through a memecoin
pool to break transaction history.

What Does an Exchange Do When a "Red Flag" Is Detected?

Automatic Blocking: Withdrawal of funds is suspended by the monitoring
system.
SOF (Source of Funds) Request: The user receives an automated email
demanding an explanation for the origin of the funds.
Manual Review: A compliance officer analyzes provided documents and
on-chain history. This stage can take from 24 hours to several weeks.
Escalation: In case of an unsatisfactory response or discovery of links
to illegal activity, the case is referred to the legal department and
potentially to law enforcement.

Practical Recommendations for Asset Protection

Operational Recommendations

Wallet Segmentation:
- CEX Wallet: Only for interacting with exchanges.
- DeFi Wallet: For working with decentralized protocols.
- High-risk Wallet: For memecoins and anonymous platforms.
  Never transfer funds directly between this wallet and a CEX wallet.
AML Screening Before Withdrawing to CEX:
- Check your address via AML services (Arkham, Nansen, TRM Labs) and ensure
  the Risk Score is in the "green zone" (<4/10).
- Use of an Intermediate Wallet: Create a new, clean wallet for
  transferring funds to the CEX. Wait 24–48 hours before the final transfer.
- Legal Disclaimer: This method is not a way to "launder" or "clean"
  funds. It merely breaks the direct on-chain link for automated systems.
  During a manual check, the exchange may still request the full path of the
  funds. Be prepared to provide all necessary documents (statements,
  contracts, screenshots of trading interfaces).
Anonymity of Identifiers: Do not register domain names (.eth, .sol) with
personal data for wallets that you wish to keep anonymous.

Compliance Recommendations

Document the Source of Funds: Always keep evidence of the legality of
your assets: statements from other exchanges, trading data, NFT sales
contracts.
Do Not Attempt to "Launder" Funds: Using mixers or complex obfuscation
schemes to hide illegal income is a crime and can lead to criminal
prosecution.

Interacting with a CEX During an SOF (Source of Funds) Request

If an exchange requests information about the origin of funds, act
professionally and promptly.

Response Template:

"Dear Compliance Team at [Exchange Name],

In response to your request regarding the source of funds for transaction
[Tx Hash] from [Date] for the amount of [Amount and Asset], I state the
following:

These funds are [trading profit / income from NFT sale / personal savings
transferred from my wallet].

I attach the following supporting documents:

Transaction hash by which the funds entered my wallet: [Tx Hash].

Screenshot of my wallet [Wallet Address] with transaction history.

Statement from the [Platform Name] platform, confirming the source of
funds.

I am ready to provide any additional information.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]"

Document Preparation List:

Full hashes of all key transactions.
Screenshots of wallet and platform interfaces.
Export of transaction history in CSV format.
Contracts or invoices, if applicable.

Ethical Risks and Responsible Publication

When conducting and publishing on-chain investigations, it is important to
minimize risks of defamation and lawsuits:

Use Cautious Wording: Replace assertions ("this is wallet X") with
hypotheses ("the wallet highly likely belongs to X").
Separate Facts from Assumptions: Clearly state what is an on-chain fact
(domain ownership) and what is an analytical hypothesis (link to a specific
person).
Evaluate Public Interest: Publication should be justified, for example, by
investigating potential fraud or insider trading.

Checklist: What to Check Before Withdrawing Funds to a CEX

Checklist item	Priority	Example
Check the address for direct links to sanctions lists (OFAC).	Critical	Address received funds from a wallet added to a sanctions list (e.g., linked to Lazarus Group).
Analyze incoming transaction history.	High	Are there mixers (Tornado Cash), unregulated casinos, or addresses marked as fraudulent on Etherscan among the sources?
Assess the source of the main amount of funds.	High	Are you ready to provide the exchange with documentary proof of the origin of funds (statement, contract, trading data)?
Check the address via an AML service (Arkham, Nansen, etc.).	Medium	Ensure the wallet's risk score is in the "green zone" (<4/10) and there are no red flags (links to darknet, gambling, etc.).
Verify no connection to your own high-risk wallets.	Medium	Ensure there were no direct transfers to this address from your own wallet used for risky activities.

Conclusion

The Polymarket win investigation proves that anonymity in Web3 is not a default
option but a result of discipline. Regulatory pressure forces exchanges to shift
responsibility for asset "purity" onto users. In current realities, capital
security requires proactive actions: strict financial hygiene, wallet
segmentation, documentation of operations, and readiness for dialogue with
compliance services.

Polymarket Winnings Investigation — Risks and Guide