House expands insider-trading probe to Crypto.com and Hyperliquid

The US House Oversight Committee widened its insider-trading investigation on September 29, sending records requests to Crypto.com, Hyperliquid and PredictIt. Each firm was asked how it verifies who its users are and how it catches trades placed on nonpublic information.

Those letters came from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, and his office posted the announcement the same day. The Block reported the requests at 1:40 p.m. Eastern on September 29, which is 17:40 UTC. None of the three companies had commented by the time it published.

What the committee asked for

Comer asked the three platforms for records on identity checks, location controls and the tools they use to flag odd trades. The requests are broad. They reach back two and a half years and cover any referrals the firms made to regulators or law enforcement. Crypto.com also drew questions about employee trades tied to token listings and custody decisions, and about trades by government officials linked to crypto rules. The letter to Crypto.com also asked about the rules it uses to stop staff with confidential information from trading related contracts. Hyperliquid was asked how it identifies account holders and how it reports suspicious activity. PredictIt, run by Aristotle Exchange, was asked about trades by current and former officials tied to elections, nominations and government actions.

"As online prediction platforms grow and become more mainstream, some bad actors have exploited the platforms to make thousands of dollars by placing bets based on nonpublic information," Comer said in the statement.

This is an expansion, not a fresh case. The committee opened the investigation in May with two other names, Polymarket and Kalshi. Both firms handed over documents. Since then the committee has collected nearly 1,000 records and held five briefings with them. Staff have said the point is to measure how far insider trading reaches on these markets, and to weigh whether Congress should bar government officials from betting on them at all.

The trade that started the questions

Comer's letters point back to one position from last year. In October 2025, a single Hyperliquid account made about $192 million by shorting the market minutes before President Donald Trump announced 100% tariffs on Chinese imports on October 10, according to reporting at the time. The trade was placed before the plan was public. On a normal day that account might have drawn no notice. The timing is what drew the questions.

Who placed it has never been confirmed. A name circulated in reports back then. The person denied any part in it. No charges followed. That single trade now sits at the center of a much wider records hunt.

Where the probe fits

Prediction markets have grown fast, and the scrutiny has grown with them. These platforms let people bet on real-world outcomes, from elections to interest-rate decisions, and the contracts pay out based on what actually happens. That design is exactly why nonpublic information is so valuable on them. New York's attorney general sued Polymarket in September, calling its event contracts illegal gambling under state law. On the federal side, lawmakers spent much of the year fighting over broad crypto market rules and fell short when the CLARITY Act failed a Senate test vote.

The worry is a familiar one. It is the same problem as trading a stock on inside information, moved onto a bet about a government decision. Someone who learns of a policy change early could take a position before the news moves the price. On a public market, that can bring civil or criminal charges. On a young prediction venue, the rules are still being drawn.

A records request is not a charge. It forces the companies to hand over data, and it shows where the committee is looking. It does not, by itself, prove that anyone broke the law. This probe also runs on a separate track from the market-structure fight. It is about conduct on the platforms, not the legal status of the tokens they list.

What to watch

Each company now has to decide how much to hand over, and how quickly. Comer's team will look for gaps between what the platforms say they do and what their records actually show. If the documents point to specific trades, the committee can refer them to the SEC, the CFTC or the Justice Department. A bill to stop government officials from trading on these markets is also in play. Nothing is settled yet.