Polymarket trading figures are being ‘double-counted ’: Paradigm

cointelegraphPublished on 2025-12-09Last updated on 2025-12-09

Abstract

According to a Paradigm researcher, reported trading activity and volume on the prediction market platform Polymarket have been significantly inflated due to a data bug causing double-counting. The issue stems from Polymarket's complex onchain data, which emits redundant "OrderFilled" events for both makers and takers in a single trade. Major dashboards, including DefiLlama and Dune Analytics, mistakenly counted these as separate trades. This error impacts both notional and cashflow volume metrics. The discovery raises questions about Polymarket's recently reported success, including a $9 billion valuation from ICE based on potentially overstated volume figures. The researcher calls for more consistent and transparent reporting standards as prediction markets mature.

Some of the reported trading activity and volume of prediction market platform Polymarket may be significantly higher than actual reality due to a “data bug,” according to a researcher at Paradigm.

“It turns out almost every major dashboard has been double-counting Polymarket volume not related to wash trading,” said Storm, a researcher at the venture capital firm.

Storm explained that this was because “Polymarket’s onchain data contains redundant representations of each trade.”

“Polymarket’s onchain data is quite complex, and this has led to widespread adoption of flawed accounting methods.”

When trades occur on Polymarket, the system emits multiple “OrderFilled” events: one set for makers, who have existing orders, and another for takers, who execute the trade.

These events describe the same trade from different perspectives, not separate trades. However, many major dashboards have been combining them, counting the same volume twice.

Polymarket has been seen as a rare crypto success recently, as spot and derivatives markets have been in turmoil. The discovery that its headline metric may be incorrect across many dashboards could dent some of its perceived success.

Polymarket’s complex blockchain data

The researcher went on to explain that the accounting bug “inflates both types of volume metrics commonly used for prediction markets, notional volume and cashflow volume.”

“Polymarket’s data has been notoriously confusing for crypto data analysts ... the data has too many layers of interacting complexity to untangle using just a block explorer.”

Related: Polymarket plans to use in-house market maker to trade against users: Report

This complexity arises because Polymarket trades can be simple swaps or they can be “splits” and “merges” where both parties exchange cash for opposing positions.

The smart contracts emit redundant events for tracking purposes, and standard blockchain explorers don’t make this distinction clear, the researcher stated.

Cointelegraph contacted Polymarket for comment, but did not receive an immediate response.

Polymarket volumes using different metrics. Source: Paradigm

Polymarket is valued at $9 billion

The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) valued the prediction platform at $9 billion this week, according to reports, citing $25 billion in trading volume, which could now be in question.

In September, it was reported that Polymarket was preparing for a US launch at a $10 billion valuation. In October, Bloomberg reported that it was looking to raise funds at a valuation between $12 billion and $15 billion.

Meanwhile, Dune Analytics reported that the platform achieved a monthly record of $3.7 billion in trading volume in November, but this may be double the actual figure if Paradigm’s research is correct.

“DefiLlama, Allium, Blockworks and many Dune dashboards were double-counting,” said the researcher.

Prediction markets are rapidly evolving into a critical financial sector, “and as the category matures, the industry should converge on consistent, transparent, and objective reporting standards,” the researcher concluded.

Magazine: XRP’s ‘now or never’ moment, Kalshi taps Solana: Hodler’s Digest

Related Questions

QWhat is the main issue with Polymarket's trading figures as reported by Paradigm?

AThe main issue is that many major dashboards have been double-counting Polymarket's trading volume due to a data bug, where redundant 'OrderFilled' events for the same trade are incorrectly summed.

QWhy does Polymarket's onchain data cause this double-counting problem?

APolymarket's onchain data is complex and emits multiple 'OrderFilled' events for a single trade—one set for makers and another for takers—which describe the same trade from different perspectives but are often counted as separate transactions.

QWhich specific metrics are inflated by this accounting bug?

AThe bug inflates both notional volume and cashflow volume, which are the two common types of volume metrics used for prediction markets.

QWhat potential impact could this discovery have on Polymarket's perceived success and valuation?

AThe discovery could dent Polymarket's perceived success, as its reported trading volume—which was cited in its $9 billion valuation by ICE and previous fundraisers—may be significantly overstated, potentially raising questions about its true market activity.

QWhich data platforms were mentioned as double-counting Polymarket volume?

ADefiLlama, Allium, Blockworks, and many Dune dashboards were specifically mentioned as platforms that were double-counting the volume.

Related Reads

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit26m ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit26m ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit39m ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit39m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片