Polymarket V2上线，幽灵订单修好了吗？

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-29Actualizado a 2026-04-29

作者 | Asher(@Asher_ 0210)

昨晚,Polymarket 进入维护窗口,暂停交易并清空订单簿,随后正式上线 CLOB V2。

按照官方此前披露,这次升级包括新合约、新订单簿、新抵押代币 Polymarket USD,以及新版 CLOB-Client SDK。对用户来说,PUSD、SDK、订单结构这些变化未必马上有明显感知。真正第一时间值得关注的,是长期困扰 Polymarket 的 Ghost Fills,也就是社区常说的“幽灵订单”问题。

V2 的确对这个问题做了处理。此前最容易被利用的 nonce 机制被移除,订单结构和撤单方式也发生了变化。但这并不意味着幽灵订单已经彻底消失,因为 Polymarket 的核心交易模式仍然是链下撮合、链上结算,只要这两个环节之间存在时间差,类似问题就很难被完全抹掉。

订单显示成交,为什么最后失败?

所谓幽灵订单,简单说就是一笔订单在链下看起来已经撮合成功,但最终没有在链上完成结算。

Polymarket 采用的是链下订单簿撮合,再回到链上完成结算的模式。这种设计的优势很明显,交易速度更快,成本更低,也更适合 5 分钟市场这类短周期、高频次的预测市场。

问题也正出在这个时间差上。链下订单簿已经显示成交,并不意味着链上结算一定成功。在一些短周期市场里,用户可能看到订单已经显示成交,以为自己已经买到了对应方向;但等到交易真正提交到链上时,结算却失败了。前一秒看起来已经完成的交易,后一秒又被系统撤回。

对用户来说,这种体验最难受的地方不是单纯失败,而是不确定性。以为已经完成买入或卖出,结果最后没有成交;等重新下单时,价格可能已经变了,交易机会也可能已经错过。

旧版本的问题,是撤单成本太低

在 V1 中,幽灵订单最容易被利用的一条路径来自 incrementNonce。nonce 可以理解为订单里的状态标识。原本它是为了帮助系统管理订单,但在旧版本中,攻击者可以通过调用 incrementNonce,让某个地址下带有旧 nonce 的订单在链上结算时失效。

这就给了攻击者一个时间差操作空间。攻击者可以先让订单在链下完成撮合,让系统显示“成交已经发生”;随后在结算真正上链之前更新 nonce,使这些订单最终执行失败。结果就是,一笔看似已经完成的交易,最后没有在链上真正落地。

问题的关键在于,这种操作成本极低,却能影响一批订单。攻击者只需要付出很低的 gas 成本,就能让本应成交的订单在结算阶段失败。前端看到的是订单先成交、后失败,实际造成的是交易结果不稳定,甚至让用户错过原本的成交价格和交易机会。

幽灵订单问题不是简单的前端显示错误,也不是偶发的链上失败,而是会直接影响用户对交易结果的信任。

V2 做了修补,但不是彻底根除

这次 V2 最关键的变化,是移除了原来的全局 nonce 设计。也就是说,过去通过 incrementNonce 一次性影响一批旧订单的方式,已经被堵上了。同时,V2 简化了订单结构,撤单也转向更细粒度的单笔 order hash。相比旧版本,撤单影响范围被明显压缩,攻击者很难再用一次低成本操作破坏大量挂单。

这对幽灵订单问题是一次实质性修补。过去的问题在于,攻击成本低、影响范围大,复现门槛也不高。V2 之后,最容易被利用的一条路径被移除。攻击者如果想继续制造类似问题,需要付出更高成本,也更依赖具体的系统响应。此外,pauseUser 等机制加入延迟,也是在减少某些状态变化在撮合和结算窗口内被即时滥用的可能。

整体来看,V2 的方向比较清楚:先处理最容易被攻击者利用的环节,再降低类似攻击的收益空间。

但这还不能等同于幽灵订单被彻底解决。原因在于,Polymarket 仍然没有改变链下撮合、链上结算的基本模式。只要订单不是在同一个环境中完成撮合和结算,链下与链上之间就一定存在状态差。余额变化、授权问题、订单状态变化、撤单行为或合约执行失败,都可能让一笔链下已撮合的订单,最终无法在链上落地。

换句话说,V2 解决的是旧版本里最明显、最容易被利用的攻击路径,而不是幽灵订单产生的基础条件。

其他更新,更多是为交易系统补底座

除了幽灵订单,V2 还带来了 PUSD、SDK 和 1271 签名等更新:

  • PUSD 为新的抵押稳定币,Polymarket 从 USDC.e 迁移到由 USDC 1:1 支持的 Polymarket USD,普通用户基本无感,但底层资产处理会更统一;
  • 新版 CLOB-Client SDK 则主要面向做市商、机器人和系统集成方。V2 后,相关用户需要升级客户端,并用新的订单结构重新签名订单;
  • 1271 签名支持,则意味着智能合约钱包、多签账户、机构账户和更复杂的 bot 钱包可以更顺畅地接入 Polymarket。

总的来说,Polymarket 不是单纯修一个漏洞,而是在把自己从一个预测市场应用,改造成更接近交易所的底层系统。当做市商、API 用户和自动化交易者越来越多时,订单能不能稳定成交、结算和兑现,就会比“市场够不够好玩”更重要。

V2 不是终点,而是持续修补的开始

V2 上线后,Polymarket 至少把幽灵订单中最明显的一条攻击路径堵上了。过去那种低成本撤单、批量影响订单的方式,已经很难再照原样复现。对一个正在快速放大的交易平台来说,这是必须完成的一步。

但幽灵订单背后的根源,并不会因为一次版本升级就完全消失。只要 Polymarket 仍然采用链下撮合、链上结算的模式,系统就需要不断处理链下状态和链上结果之间的差异。V2 更像是第一步——先解决最明显、最容易被利用的问题,再通过后续更新继续补齐撮合、结算、监控和风控能力。

预测市场本来交易的就是不确定性,如果连订单本身也充满不确定,用户面对的就不再只是市场风险,而是系统风险。

相关内容

被卡住的Polymarket:走过流量红利的真正大考来了

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbitHace 8 hora(s)

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbitHace 8 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Hace 8 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 8 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Hace 12 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Hace 12 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHace 13 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHace 13 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片