预测市场的黑暗面

深潮Pubblicato 2025-08-31Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-09-01

用社区的说法就是,预言机在 「偏袒巨鲸」。

撰文:Splin Teron

编译:Luffy,Foresight News

我下面要讲的这些坑,我自己都踩过,还为此亏了不少钱。

没必要否认当下的趋势。谷歌趋势显示,「预测市场」 如今的搜索量已与年初 「 memecoin」 的搜索量持平。

但首先,我们还是快速了解一下预测市场的基本运作方式:

  1. 存入 USDC ;

  2. 购买一个结果代币,要么是 「看涨」(Yes),要么是 「看跌」(No);

  3. 代币会锁定在智能合约中,直到事件结束;

  4. 事件尘埃落定后,预言机(Oracle)会锁定结果;

  5. 要是你押注的结果正确,就能赎回代币并获得收益;要是押错了,投入的本金就会亏损。

所以说…… 预言机就是真相的外部来源。在 Polymarket 平台上,这个角色由 UMA 担任。

事件结束后,预言机向合约发送信号:「Yes」或「No」。也就是在这个时候,资金会在参与者之间重新分配。

整个市场的信任都依赖于预言机。要是预言机出现 「误判」,或是以存疑的方式确定结果 —— 即便事实显而易见,也会有人获利、有人亏损。

而问题就在于…… 预言机的 「误判」 其实相当频繁。或者,用社区的说法就是,预言机在 「偏袒巨鲸」!

案例 1:乌克兰与特朗普矿产协议

2025 年 3 月:Polymarket 平台上 「乌克兰与特朗普达成矿产交易」 的预测市场,最终判定结果为 Yes,但实际上双方根本没有达成任何交易,是 UMA 的巨鲸们强行推动了这一决策。用户因此亏损数百万美元,而 Polymarket 却宣布不会提供任何退款。

案例 2:2025 年 5 月前 TikTok 是否会被封禁

2025 年 1 月:Polymarket 平台上 「2025 年 5 月前 TikTok 是否会被封禁」 的预测市场,最终判定结果为 Yes。尽管美国最高法院批准了相关法案,但实际上 TikTok 并未被封禁,仍在正常运营。UMA 预言机直接锁定了这一结果,跳过了常规的争议解决流程。当时该市场涉及的资金规模约为 1.2 亿美元。用户纷纷指责这是操纵行为,但平台依旧没有提供退款。

案例 3:泽连斯基是否会穿传统西装亮相

2025 年 7 月:Polymarket 平台上 「泽连斯基是否会穿传统西装亮相」 的预测市场,吸引了超 2.1 亿美元的投注资金。尽管多家媒体,甚至西装的制作者都证实泽连斯基穿的就是西装,但 UMA 预言机却判定该市场结果为 No。他们用一个模糊的解释为这一结果辩护,称 「市场的核心意图是‘搭配领带的西装’」,而这一说法其实是在为巨鲸们保驾护航,帮他们保住持仓。

案例 4:胡塞武装是否会在 8 月 31 日前袭击以色列

2025 年 8 月:Polymarket 平台上 「胡塞武装是否会在 8 月 31 日前袭击以色列」 的预测市场,交易额达 1300 万美元,最终判定结果为 Yes。但实际上,官方消息已证实导弹在半空中就被拦截了。 按照规则,这个结果本应判定为 No。

我不想把所有案例都列出来凑字数…… 要是你想了解更多,可以去 Reddit 上搜,或者用 Grok、ChatGPT 查。

为什么那些结果显而易见的市场,最终判定却与事实相悖呢?到底是谁在投票中拥有决定权呢?

我不知道答案,但关键的一点很简单:这种事确实在发生,而且人们正在因此亏钱!

哪些筛选方法能帮你在交易前规避风险?

  • 做好资金管理:单个市场的投注金额不超过你存款的 1%-3%;

  • 选择有明确信息来源的事件,比如法院判决、官方声明、链上数据等;

  • 查看市场流动性和顶级持仓者名单;

  • 提前止盈,比如在收益达到 95% 左右时就离场,不要等到最终结果确定。

而且希望你能明白,预测市场更偏向赌博,而非投资。要是你控制不住投注的冲动,最好还是远离这个领域……

但如果你决定深入了解,我附上了一张不同协议的分布图,帮你走进预测市场的世界。

Letture associate

Retail Investors' 'Lead Brother' Serenity vs. Newly Minted Stock God Leopold: How Are the Two Top Hunters Mining AI's 'Physical Limits'?

The article profiles two prominent figures, Serenity and Leopold Aschenbrenner, who are gaining attention for their unconventional investment strategies focused on the physical constraints of the AI boom, moving beyond mainstream software narratives. Serenity, an anonymous online trader, advocates a "shiso leaf" theory. He targets small-cap companies with monopolies on critical, overlooked components in the AI hardware supply chain, such as specific semiconductor materials. His deep, technical analysis of bottlenecks in areas like co-packaged optics (CPO) has reportedly yielded massive returns, though his anonymity and focus on illiquid micro-cap stocks pose significant risks for followers. Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI researcher, founded a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. His macro thesis argues that physical infrastructure—power grids, land, data centers—is the true bottleneck for AI growth, lagging far behind chip production. Consequently, his fund employs an infrastructure arbitrage strategy: heavily investing in storage and compute infrastructure companies while placing massive bearish bets (put options) against major semiconductor stocks, betting their valuations will correct as physical constraints become apparent. While their methods differ—Serenity drills into microscopic supply chain details, while Leopold takes a macroscopic, infrastructure-focused view—both share a core belief: the real power and investment alpha in the AI era lie in controlling scarce physical resources, not just software. The article concludes by noting the inherent risks in both approaches, such as liquidity issues for micro-caps and timing risks for macro bets, but suggests they signal a broader market re-evaluation of AI's foundational assets.

marsbit5 h fa

Retail Investors' 'Lead Brother' Serenity vs. Newly Minted Stock God Leopold: How Are the Two Top Hunters Mining AI's 'Physical Limits'?

marsbit5 h fa

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

In the Agents era of blockchain, traditional value capture theories face challenges. The "Fat Protocol" theory, dominant since 2016, suggested protocols capture most value as their tokens are essential for network use. However, the proliferation of interchangeable L1s, L2s, and modular layers has eroded protocol scarcity and pricing power. Conversely, the "Fat App" theory posits that applications capturing user relationships (like wallets and exchanges) become the primary value layer by controlling distribution and transaction flows. This aligns with the current "Great Repricing" cycle. Agents disrupt this logic. As software users, they lack brand loyalty, prioritize cost and efficiency, and switch between platforms seamlessly. This undermines the front-end UX moats that "Fat Apps" rely on. The article explores several potential futures: 1. **Headless Applications:** Current leading apps could strip their front-ends and become backend API infrastructure for Agents, preserving their role. 2. **Protocol Resurgence:** If integration becomes trivial, Agents might bypass aggregators and interact directly with protocols, reviving "Fat Protocol" dynamics. 3. **Pricing Power Collapse:** Agents' rational, frictionless routing could commoditize the entire stack, compressing margins toward cost and leaving little profit for intermediaries. 4. **Unprecedented Activity:** Agents may enable new, high-frequency, machine-to-machine economic activities, expanding the total value pie even if margins are thin. 5. **A New, Unnamed Model:** Historically, major tech shifts (like the internet's attention economy) create unforeseen business models. The Agents era may spawn entirely new ways to capture value. The most likely outcome is a coexistence where "Fat Apps" continue to serve human users valuing UX, while a separate, Agent-driven economy emerges governed by different rules—where loyalty is based on factors like liquidity, latency, and settlement guarantees rather than brand.

marsbit6 h fa

Who Will Make Money in the Age of Agents?

marsbit6 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片