Infinex Public Offering Rumors: Five Hours of Insider Trading and a Major Rule Reversal

Project fundraising should be transparent and competitive, but it has been stirred up by two new accounts. Three wallets placed concentrated bets on Polymarket, causing the predicted probability to skyrocket from 20% to 70% in an instant, and the Infinex team announced a rule adjustment just five hours later. Is this a coincidence or insider information leak? This detail warrants further investigation.

Suspicious Signs Behind the Timeline

According to analyst The Poly Nerd’s observations, the key to the entire event lies in an extremely tight time window:

Suspicious features of insider trading

The behavior patterns exhibited by these three wallets are indeed worth vigilance:

• New accounts: all created just one day before the event
• Betting consistency: similar betting ratios on the $5 million target
• Precise risk management: actively lowering margins on higher targets to maximize profits
• Accurate timing: concentrated actions within five hours before the rule change

Together, these features point to a possibility: these accounts had prior knowledge of Infinex’s upcoming rule adjustment.

Why the rule change was inevitable

But here’s an interesting twist. Infinex’s rule adjustment didn’t happen out of nowhere; it was a forced compromise by the project team.

According to related information, Infinex’s initial public offering performance was poor:

• Strict KYC verification process
• $2,500 purchase limit per user
• 1-year lock-up mechanism
• Valuation of $99.99 million

These conditions combined resulted in only $600,000 raised in two days, far from the $5 million target. Founder Kain Warwick even publicly stated that he personally funded the project for the first 18 months.

Faced with this situation, adjusting the rules was inevitable. They removed the purchase limit and adopted a “max-min fair distribution” mechanism, attempting to stimulate market participation. This adjustment was indeed effective—after the announcement, the market’s predicted probability of raising over $5 million increased from 57% to 78%.

The cost of information asymmetry

This incident reflects a deeper issue: significant asymmetry exists between information holders and ordinary participants in project fundraising.

While we cannot confirm that these three wallets belong to the project team or related parties, they clearly possessed information unknown to regular market participants. Such asymmetry is illegal insider trading in traditional finance, but in crypto markets, it’s difficult to define and regulate.

From the Infinex team’s perspective, they might have unintentionally leaked information during internal discussions, or someone close to decision-makers might have acted. Kain Warwick mentioned afterward that he had discussions with hundreds of people across various chat groups about fundraising plans, which itself highlights the difficulty of controlling information flow.

Lessons from market reactions

Interestingly, even after the rule change, Infinex’s fundraising outlook remains uncertain. Removing the purchase limit attracted more funds, but the project still insists on a one-year lock-up and a valuation of $99.99 million, conditions that remain unattractive to investors.

This shows that merely adjusting rules isn’t enough to address the core issues. Infinex needs to demonstrate its value rather than rely on rule changes to attract capital.

Summary

The five-hour window during Infinex’s public offering reveals the reality of information asymmetry in the crypto market. While the suspicious behavior of the three wallets isn’t definitive proof, it is enough to provoke reflection:

• Information leaks in project fundraising do exist
• Prediction markets can serve as tools to detect insider trading
• The crypto market needs more transparent disclosure mechanisms
• Strict fundraising conditions can backfire, encouraging participants to seek informational advantages

For investors, this is a reminder: be cautious of risks brought by information asymmetry when participating in project fundraising. For project teams, transparent communication and fair treatment of all participants are the long-term sustainable paths to successful fundraising.