Drake Associate Loses $177K on Cardi B Bet—Why ‘Insider Info’ Couldn’t Save Him

A Drake associate turned $185,000 into a cautionary tale about prediction markets when he lost $177,000 betting that Cardi B wouldn’t perform at Super Bowl LX—despite reportedly having music industry insider knowledge. But the real story isn’t one man’s bad bet. It’s that two major prediction platforms watched the same 60-second cameo and reached opposite conclusions, exposing a category of risk most bettors never consider until it’s too late.

The $177,000 Lesson: Why Industry Connections Couldn’t Save Preme

Preme, a Canadian rapper with deep ties to Drake and the broader music industry, created a Polymarket account just one day before Super Bowl LX. Hours before kickoff on February 8, he placed approximately $185,000 in wagers across two bets: that Drake would not perform during the halftime show, and that Cardi B would not perform either.

The first bet was straightforward. Drake didn’t appear during Bad Bunny’s headlining halftime set, and Preme collected roughly $200 on that correct prediction. But the second bet—the one that mattered—turned into one of the most discussed prediction market losses of Super Bowl week.

Preme reportedly had industry knowledge suggesting Cardi B would not sing at the halftime show. That information may have been technically correct. During her approximately 60-second appearance in the “la casita” set piece—alongside Pedro Pascal, Karol G, Young Miko, and Jessica Alba—Cardi B never held a microphone, never clearly sang, and never performed a verse. She danced and appeared to mouth words to music.

But Polymarket’s contract didn’t ask whether she would sing. It asked whether she would “perform.” And Polymarket’s Oracle system, relying on media consensus from CBS, NBC, and the NFL—all of which listed Cardi B as a performer—ruled “Yes.” Physical presence plus choreographed participation equaled performance.

Preme’s assumption—that performing meant singing or rapping—cost him $177,000. He publicly criticized Polymarket’s ruling on X, then deleted the post and changed his username to reduce visibility. Screenshots of the wager, the deleted reply, and the account changes circulated widely across betting communities.

The irony, as Sportscasting noted, is that Preme correctly called the other half of his thesis. Drake did not appear during the halftime show, and that wager paid out. But “insider info” about what an artist won’t do is useless when the contract language defines the outcome more broadly than you expected.

Same Event, Opposite Rulings: Kalshi vs. Polymarket

If you’d placed identical bets on Cardi B performing at the Super Bowl halftime show on both major prediction platforms, you would have won on one and lost on the other. That’s not a hypothetical—it’s exactly what happened to thousands of traders across a combined $57 million market.

Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana explained the platform’s reasoning: “The rules were clear. Under the full rules, singing and dancing counted as a performance, but just dancing in the background did not. In the as-broadcast performance, Cardi B was dancing and mouthing words to the song, but it was unclear if she was ‘singing’.”

Rather than make a binary call on an ambiguous outcome, Kalshi invoked Rule 6.3(c)—a discretionary provision that allows the platform to settle at the last traded price before trading was paused. That meant “No” holders received $0.74 per contract and “Yes” holders received $0.26.

Polymarket took the opposite approach. Its Oracle system, built on the UMA Protocol, resolved the market based on media consensus. CBS, NBC, and the NFL all listed Cardi B among the halftime performers. In Polymarket’s interpretation, physical presence plus participation in choreography equaled a performance—full stop. “Yes” holders received $1.00 per contract.

The Karol G Inconsistency

There’s a detail that most coverage has missed: Kalshi settled Karol G as a “Yes”—meaning she performed—but settled Cardi B as “ambiguous.” Both artists did essentially the same thing during the halftime show: dancing on stage without clearly singing solo.

This inconsistency drew sharp criticism. One Twitter user, @EvMassachusetts, wrote: “@Kalshi settling Cardi B as not performing (despite clearly meeting all 3 requirements) is just more proof that they are scumbags who settle based on their own personal interest. They settled Karol G and Cardi B differently despite them doing the exact same thing.”

Whether or not that accusation is fair, the inconsistent application of rules undermines platform credibility and creates potential arbitrage opportunities for sophisticated traders who understand when platforms might invoke discretionary clauses.

The CFTC Complaint: $3,700 That Could Set Precedent

In what appears to be the first formal CFTC complaint over a prediction market settlement dispute, an anonymous Kalshi “Yes” holder filed a complaint with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission alleging that the platform violated the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaint was first reported by Dustin Gouker’s Event Horizon newsletter and subsequently covered by Front Office Sports.

The complainant had expected a $5,000 payout but received only $1,300 under the partial settlement—a difference of $3,700. The complaint alleges unfair and deceptive conduct, failure to provide clear and objective rules, and the arbitrary invocation of an “extraordinary and discretionary remedy” after the event had already occurred.

A CFTC spokesman declined to comment, and no immediate enforcement action has been announced. But the dollar amount isn’t the point. This complaint tests whether traders have legal recourse when platforms invoke discretionary settlement rules—and it arrives at a moment when Kalshi is already fighting regulatory battles in Massachusetts (where a preliminary injunction was issued against its sports contracts), Connecticut (where a hearing was scheduled for February 12, 2026), and Nevada.

The Volume Behind the Controversy

This isn’t a niche dispute in a corner of the internet. The Cardi B performance question alone generated approximately $57 million in combined trading volume across both platforms—$4.4 million on Kalshi’s specific Cardi B market (part of a broader $47.3 million “Who will perform?” market) and over $10 million on Polymarket.

Kalshi reported over $1 billion in total Super Bowl day trading volume across all markets, representing a staggering 2,700% year-over-year increase. An estimated 128 million viewers tuned in for the halftime show—an NFL record—meaning the pool of people with an opinion on what “performing” means was massive.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev captured the industry’s bullish sentiment during a recent earnings call: “I think we are just at the beginning of a prediction market super cycle that could drive trillions in annual volume over time.” But as volumes scale, so do the stakes when edge cases arise—and edge cases in entertainment markets are inevitable.

Third Major Dispute in Six Weeks: A Pattern Emerges

The Cardi B controversy isn’t an isolated incident. It’s the third major prediction market settlement dispute in just six weeks, forming a clear pattern that should concern anyone with money on these platforms.

The pattern is consistent: contract language is vague on edge cases, a real-world event doesn’t fit neatly into a yes/no binary, the platform invokes a discretionary interpretation, traders lose money they expected to win, and backlash plus regulatory scrutiny follows.

This keeps happening because prediction markets are scaling rapidly—weekly volumes now exceed $6 billion—and more volume inevitably means more edge cases. Entertainment and political markets are inherently more ambiguous than economic data markets. Whether CPI exceeded 3% has a definitive answer. Whether a 60-second dance cameo counts as a “performance” doesn’t.

The legislative response is already underway. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) introduced the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026 after the Maduro controversy, focusing on barring government employees from using nonpublic information on prediction markets. The Cardi B dispute adds fuel to broader calls for clearer settlement standards across the industry.

What Bettors Should Know: Platform Risk Is Real

If you’d bet “Yes” on Cardi B performing at the Super Bowl halftime show on Polymarket, you’d have received a full $1.00 payout. The same bet on Kalshi would have returned just $0.26—a 74% haircut. Same bet, same event, same outcome. Different platforms, different results.

Platform risk—the possibility that even a correct prediction won’t pay out as expected because of how a platform interprets its own rules—is a category of risk that most bettors don’t consider until they’ve already been burned by it.

The bottom line: in prediction markets, reading the full contract rules isn’t optional—it’s the most important research you can do. Industry connections, insider knowledge, and correct predictions all become worthless if the contract language defines your outcome differently than you assumed.

---

Sources

• Super Bowl LX Market Results — Kalshi
• Cardi B Halftime Show Prediction Market Dispute — CBS News
• CFTC Complaint Filed Over Kalshi Settlement — Front Office Sports
• Drake Associate Preme Loses $177K on Super Bowl Bet — Sportscasting
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission — CFTC
• Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026 — Congress.gov