They already knew the TGA Game of the Year in advance and made tens of thousands of dollars.
Today, the highly anticipated TGA (The Game Awards) in the gaming world finally came to a close.
Let's rewind to 3 hours before the end of the awards ceremony. At this moment, the "Best Indie Game" had just been awarded to the popular title "Light and Shadow: Expedition 33," but this made many fans worry instead. Never in history has a game won both the "Best Indie Game" and the "Game of the Year (GOTY)" awards at TGA.
As the frontrunner for the GOTY, "Light and Shadow" now needed to break the curse that had existed since TGA's inception, creating an unprecedented moment in the gaming world.
Just as everyone was anxiously concerned, a mysterious individual registered an account on a seemingly unrelated "prediction market" platform and deposited ten thousand dollars. He found the topic on the platform asking, "Will Light and Shadow win the 2025 GOTY?" and placed his entire ten thousand dollar deposit on "yes."
At this time, the price representing the probability of the topic being "yes" was $0.98 per share, which meant that even if "Light and Shadow" did make history by winning both awards, his ten thousand dollar bet would only yield a profit of less than two hundred dollars. However, if "Light and Shadow" failed to break the TGA curse, the probability of this topic would instantly drop to 0, which meant his newly deposited ten thousand dollars would be lost.
Just how much must a fervent fan of "Light and Shadow" love the game to take such a reckless risk? How did the prediction market attract gamers from around the world to speculate in advance on the frontrunners for the awards?
The "Predetermined" Script
As early as October 30, a month and a half before the awards ceremony, the prediction market Polymarket launched the topic of the "2025 Game of the Year." The odds of "Light and Shadow" winning were firmly above 80% from the start, while the probabilities of other highly anticipated AAA titles winning were kept below 10%. Due to such a one-sided situation, which usually only occurs in events where the outcome is already certain, many traders sensed a hint of unusualness: this was not just optimism, this was certainty.
Among these traders who held a "certain" attitude, there were several whose trading styles were extremely uniform. DieselDiesel, trumpnogo, and kasae all bet on "Light and Shadow winning TGA 2025 GOTY" when the probability was around 85%, with their bets exceeding their usual amounts by tens or even hundreds of times. This highly concentrated, abnormal betting behavior exposed them to significant risks: if Light and Shadow ultimately did not win, they would not only lose all their past profits but also face substantial losses.
As time passed and the odds of winning The Game Awards increased, they did not profit by selling any of their held shares. Even with a significant unrealized gain hours before the award announcement, after the "Best Indie Game" award had already been announced, they remained unfazed as if they could see the future, joining forces with the mysterious figure mentioned at the beginning of this article to wager their entire account balance for a modest profit.
The Awarding of History and the Insider's Payoff
Amidst doubt and anxiety, as if following a script these traders had set over a month ago, The Game Awards dispelled the final suspense: the highly anticipated game, "Light and Shadow," having already won the "Best Indie Game" award, broke a historical curse and won the Best Game of the Year award.
While players on one side rejoiced, on the other side, the prediction market unveiled the final mystery: three traders who were certain a month ago that "Light and Shadow" would win the award solidified their roles as "seers," realizing massive profits:
DieselDiesel made a profit of $5,357 in this event, representing 176% of all their other trading profits;
trumpnogo made a profit of $2,958 in this event, representing 62% of all their other trading profits;
kasae made a profit of $1,658 in this event, representing 220% of all their other trading profits.
As for the mysterious figure mentioned at the beginning (bobo9997), they bet $10,000 on "Light and Shadow" making history to win $200.

Even Soothsayers Have to Eat
The most noteworthy commonality among these four traders is that while many players doubted whether "Light and Shadow" could break the historical curse, they were willing to risk nearly $100,000 in their positions to "bet" that this historic moment would occur. However, the proceeds from this "gamble" amounted to less than $2,000 combined.
At this point, let's assume these "seers" were TGA tally audit officials. For these insider individuals with a $100,000 annual income, if they were to monetize the information in a traditional manner, they would need to sell the insider information to platforms, risking various potential fines, dismissal, or even imprisonment.
Yet, with the advent of prediction markets, they could anonymously exchange the information gap for an amount equivalent to 1 to 3 months of their disposable income.
When we view everything through the lens of an insider who is assumed to already know the outcome, everything becomes clear: In a situation where it is already 100% certain that "Light and Shadow" will be the GOTY, their "wager" at the last moment is simply using the one-hour waiting time before the award ceremony to exchange for a seemingly high-risk yet actually variable-free profit of two thousand dollars.
This type of high-risk, yet variable-free earning "wager" for them was almost impossible to encounter before platforms like prediction markets emerged.
However, with the rise of Polymarket, how many people can resist converting information into tangible rewards in an anonymous manner?

You may also like

Found a "meme coin" that skyrocketed in just a few days. Any tips?

TAO is Elon Musk, who invested in OpenAI, and Subnet is Sam Altman

The era of "mass coin distribution" on public chains comes to an end

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions
The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.
There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."
No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.
In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.
X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.
This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.
The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.
The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.
After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."
From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.
In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.
As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."
Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.
For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.
This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.
There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."
X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.
In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.
WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.
X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.
These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.
This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.
X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.
Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.
The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.
X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.
The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.

Parse Noise's newly launched Beta version, how to "on-chain" this heat?

Is Lobster a Thing of the Past? Unpacking the Hermes Agent Tools that Supercharge Your Throughput to 100x

Declare War on AI? The Doomsday Narrative Behind Ultraman's Residence in Flames

Crypto VCs Are Dead? The Market Extinction Cycle Has Begun

Claude's Journey to Foolishness in Diagrams: The Cost of Thriftiness, or How API Bill Increased 100-Fold

Edge Land Regress: A Rehash Around Maritime Power, Energy, and the Dollar

Arthur Hayes Latest Interview: How Should Retail Investors Navigate the Iran Conflict?

Just now, Sam Altman was attacked again, this time by gunfire

Straits Blockade, Stablecoin Recap | Rewire News Morning Edition

From High Expectations to Controversial Turnaround, Genius Airdrop Triggers Community Backlash

