Key Highlights
- An Israeli journalist allegedly faced death threats from bettors on the decentralized prediction market Polymarket.
- The threats were aimed at intimidating the reporter into altering a news report about an Iranian missile strike.
- The incident highlights a disturbing new trend where financial incentives in online betting markets are directly interfering with accurate battlefield reporting during active conflicts.
A military correspondent for The Times of Israel said he received death threats and extortion attempts from individuals who had placed large wagers on Polymarket, a crypto prediction platform, after his reporting on an Iranian missile strike contradicted the outcome their bets required.
Emanuel Fabian, the reporter, said the campaign included fabricated screenshots, an indirect bribery offer, and messages containing personal details about his family and home address. The threats were tied to a Polymarket prediction pool that had attracted more than $14 million in wagers on whether Iran would successfully strike Israeli soil on March 10, 2026.
Polymarket said on March 16 that it had permanently banned the accounts linked to the alleged harassment and was cooperating with Israel Police. The platform condemned the conduct but did not comment on the specific details of Fabian’s account.
The strike and the bet
Iran launched a combined drone and missile attack against Israel on March 10. The Israel Defense Forces reported widespread interceptions, but Fabian, reporting from the scene near Beit Shemesh, approximately 20 miles west of Jerusalem, said at least one ballistic missile struck an open, forested area. He cited dashcam footage and confirmation from local rescue services.
The detail was consequential for Polymarket bettors. The prediction pool, titled “Iran strikes Israel on March 10, 2026?”, had amassed over $14 million in total wagers and was set to resolve “Yes” only if a successful strike on Israeli soil occurred. Fabian’s report meant that users who had bet on a complete interception—the “No” outcome—stood to lose their positions.
Escalation: From emails to threats
Fabian said the pressure began with emails from users identifying themselves as “Aviv” and “Daniel,” who suggested his report was inaccurate and claimed the Beit Shemesh municipality had reclassified the explosion as interceptor debris. Fabian said he declined to alter his reporting.
The tactics then escalated, according to Fabian. He received a fabricated screenshot that appeared to show him conceding the missile had been intercepted and promising a correction. Separately, Fabian said a fellow journalist told him that an acquaintance connected to the bettors had offered a financial incentive—described as a share of the winnings—in exchange for persuading Fabian to amend his report.
When those efforts failed, Fabian said, an individual identified as “Haim” sent threatening messages via WhatsApp. Fabian provided screenshots of the messages to The Times of Israel. In one, the sender wrote, “After you make us lose $900,000, we will invest no less than that to finish you.“
Another set a 90-minute deadline for Fabian to change his report. The messages also included specific personal details about Fabian’s home neighborhood and family members, which he said were not publicly available. Fabian described the doxing as an attempt to demonstrate that the senders could locate him.
Fabian’s response
Fabian said he chose to go public to draw attention to the risks. “It’s not enough that as a military reporter you deal with censorship and propaganda from the army, and of course with rockets exploding and alarms,” he told The Times of Israel. “Now we have to deal with a threat to our lives from gamblers in some decentralized market?”
Polymarket’s response
In response to the controversy, Polymarket said it condemned the alleged conduct and had permanently banned the accounts of the individuals Fabian identified. The company said it was “fully cooperating” with Israel Police and had passed on relevant user data.
The incident adds to mounting scrutiny of decentralized prediction markets. Polymarket faced allegations of insider trading in 2025 and has drawn criticism from U.S. lawmakers who argue that allowing bets on volatile geopolitical events creates perverse incentive structures.
While Polymarket asserts that its users are motivated by a search for “information accuracy,” this case painfully highlights how a massive “No” payout—the incentive in this scenario—can motivate bad actors to suppress or alter accurate information.
This event mirrors previous concerns surrounding Polymarket, which faced allegations of insider trading in 2025 and has drawn criticism from U.S. lawmakers for creating a “harmful incentive structure” by allowing users to bet on the outcome of volatile geopolitical events.
Also Read: Is Polymarket Legal Worldwide? What You Need to Know (2026 Update)
