Polymarket: 84% of Traders Are Losing Money, 0.033% of People Take the Majority of Profits

marsbitPubblicato 2026-04-08Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-04-08

Introduzione

A recent analysis of 2.5 million Polymarket wallet addresses by on-chain researcher Andrey Sergeenkov reveals that 84.1% of traders are losing money, with only 16% achieving any profit. A mere 2% of addresses have accumulated over $1,000 in profits, while just 0.033% (840 addresses) have earned more than $100,000. The study, which improved on prior methodologies by accounting for token splits and mergers, shows a significant increase in unprofitable traders compared to a previous 70% estimate. Profit concentration is extreme: only 1.25% of addresses make over $1,000 monthly, 0.26% earn above $5,000, and just 0.13% surpass $10,000. Most high-earning addresses are short-lived, with 53% of top traders active for only one month. Research indicates that automated strategies—such as arbitrage bots and high-frequency trading systems—dominate profits, exploiting public on-chain data and speed advantages that manual retail traders lack. Despite Polymarket’s accuracy in prediction (94% a month before outcomes), the platform exhibits a stark wealth disparity, raising questions about its function as an information aggregator versus a zero-sum game favoring sophisticated players.

Author: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: The latest analysis of 2.5 million wallet addresses on Polymarket by on-chain researcher Andrey Sergeenkov shows that 84.1% of traders are at a loss, with only 2% of addresses accumulating profits exceeding $1,000, and 840 addresses (0.033%) profiting over $100,000. The timing of this report is quite delicate—Polymarket has just secured an exclusive predictive market partnership with MLB for up to $300 million and is pushing hard for retail user growth.

Wealth distribution in on-chain prediction markets is even more brutal than most people imagine.

According to a report by The Defiant on April 6, independent on-chain researcher Andrey Sergeenkov released a profit and loss analysis covering 2.5 million Polymarket wallet addresses, with data as of April 1, 2026. The core conclusion: 84.1% of traders are losing money, and less than 16% of addresses have achieved any level of positive returns.

This is not the first such study. In December 2025, blockchain analyst DeFi Oasis analyzed 1.7 million addresses and 124 million transactions, concluding that 70% of traders were not profitable. Sergeenkov's data sample is larger, and the methodology has been improved (capturing token splits and merges missed in previous research), with the loss ratio jumping from 70% to 84%.

The Top of the Pyramid: Less Than 0.26% Earn Over $5,000 Monthly

Sergeenkov conducted a full analysis of transaction data from two smart contracts, CTF Exchange and NegRisk CTF Exchange, by tracking all USDC fund flows (including buys, sells, redemptions, splits, and merges) on the Polygon chain.

The numbers in the high-profit range are quite stark: addresses with average monthly profits exceeding $1,000 account for 1.25%; those exceeding $5,000 are only 0.26%, about 6,600 addresses; and those exceeding $10,000 drop to 3,250, representing 0.13% of all traders.

More critical is the issue of sustainability. Among those 6,600 addresses with average monthly profits exceeding $5,000, 53% were active for one month and then disappeared, with only 2.6% trading continuously for over a year. Sergeenkov summarized in the report: "Most traders come, trade for a while, and then leave."

In contrast, bottom-feeders consistently harvest profits. An academic paper from Spain's IMDEA Networks Institute analyzed 86 million on-chain transactions between April 2024 and April 2025, finding that arbitrage traders extracted approximately $40 million in profits just from price differences. A single wallet achieved the highest profit of $2 million from 4,049 transactions, averaging $496 per trade.

Retail Manual Trading Can't Beat Bots, Information Advantage Highly Concentrated

The root cause of losses is not complicated. IMDEA's research shows that the largest profits are concentrated in wallets using automated strategies: arbitrage bots, market-making algorithms, and high-frequency trading systems. Manual retail traders typically enter the market only after prices have already adjusted.

This is the fundamental difference between prediction markets and traditional gambling. Polymarket's order book is completely public, and on-chain data is transparent, but this transparency instead makes it easier for professional traders to build systematic advantages. A quantitative wallet equipped with low-latency APIs and probability models is not in the same arena as an ordinary user who opens the app to place a bet after seeing the news.

According to Token Terminal data, Polymarket's nominal trading volume over the past 30 days is approximately $9.8 billion, with about 462,600 monthly active traders. The platform's growth itself is not an issue, but the relationship between user growth and user profitability is inverse—Sergeenkov's data shows that the decline in the proportion of profitable traders is directly related to peaks in user growth, especially the influx after the November 2024 U.S. election.

Information Aggregation Tool or Zero-Sum Game?

This report has reignited an old debate: who exactly do prediction markets serve?

The core argument of supporters is information aggregation. Polymarket's official data claims that its price prediction accuracy exceeds 94% one month before the outcome is determined. In other words, even if 84% of traders are losing money, the market as a whole is still producing valuable probability signals. The losing retail traders are essentially paying for information pricing.

Critics argue that when 84% of a platform's participants are losing money and profits are highly concentrated in the hands of automated traders, the difference between it and a casino is merely a matter of regulatory classification. Especially in the realm of sports contracts, the line between prediction markets and sports betting is being deliberately blurred.

Polymarket's valuation has exceeded $20 billion, and the Intercontinental Exchange (parent company of the NYSE) invested $2 billion in October 2025. Capital markets are clearly betting on the growth story of prediction markets.

But Sergeenkov's report raises a simple question: when the next wave of 2.5 million users floods in, how will their fate differ from the previous wave?

Crypto di tendenza

Domande pertinenti

QAccording to the analysis of 2.5 million Polymarket wallet addresses, what percentage of traders are losing money?

A84.1% of traders are losing money.

QWhat is the estimated number of addresses that have profited more than $100,000 on Polymarket, according to the researcher Andrey Sergeenkov?

A840 addresses (0.033% of the total) have profited more than $100,000.

QWhat does the research from the IMDEA Networks Institute identify as the primary reason for散户 (retail traders) losses on prediction markets like Polymarket?

AThe research found that the largest profits are concentrated in wallets using automated strategies (arbitrage bots, market-making algorithms, and high-frequency trading systems), while manual retail traders typically enter the market after prices have already adjusted.

QWhat key statistic does the article mention about the sustainability of high-earning traders (those making over $5,000 monthly)?

AAmong the 6,600 addresses with monthly profits exceeding $5,000, 53% were only active for one month before disappearing, and only 2.6% traded consistently for over a year.

QDespite most traders losing money, what is the core argument of supporters who defend the value of prediction markets like Polymarket?

ASupporters argue that prediction markets serve as valuable information aggregation tools, with Polymarket's prices achieving over 94% accuracy in predicting outcomes one month in advance, meaning the market as a whole produces valuable probabilistic signals even if most individual traders lose money.

Letture associate

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

In three days, Google lost two AI legends. On June 18, Noam Shazeer, co-author of the seminal "Attention is All You Need" paper and Gemini co-lead, left for OpenAI. Just 48 hours later, John Jumper, 2024 Nobel laureate and AlphaFold lead, departed DeepMind for Anthropic. This follows Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic in May. These moves highlight a structural trend: top AI talent is concentrating at mission-driven, pre-IPO firms like OpenAI and Anthropic, while Google becomes a primary source. The exodus stems from a core mission mismatch. Google's ad-centric model often subordinates AI research to product and revenue goals, creating friction for pioneers like Shazeer, who returned in 2024 only to leave again. In contrast, OpenAI and Anthropic offer singular focus on pushing AI boundaries, whether towards AGI or safety-aligned models, which deeply appeals to top researchers like Jumper. Financial incentives amplify the pull. With both OpenAI and Anthropic nearing IPO, employees stand to gain immensely from equity, an upside Google's mature stock cannot match. Furthermore, the 2023 merger of Google Brain and DeepMind, intended to consolidate strength, has instead created cultural tension and slowed the path from research to product, as evidenced by Gemini's pace. This talent redistribution is reshaping the AI landscape. While Google retains vast data and compute resources, its true crisis is the quiet, continuous loss of the people who define the field's future. The real moat in AI is not infrastructure, but the concentration of brilliant minds—a battle Google is currently losing.

marsbit1 h fa

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

marsbit1 h fa

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

Beyond the familiar performance charts like MMLU-Pro and MMMU, which major AI models strive to ace, stands a key "examiner": Chinese-Canadian researcher Wenhu Chen. An assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and founder of TIGERLab, Chen addresses the crucial need for more rigorous AI evaluation. As models like GPT-4 began scoring near-perfect results on older benchmarks like MMLU, it became difficult to distinguish their true capabilities. In response, Chen introduced MMLU-Pro in 2024, featuring harder, more reasoning-focused questions with more answer choices, successfully reintroducing meaningful performance gaps. His work extends to multi-modal evaluation with MMMU and its enhanced version, MMMU-Pro. These benchmarks test a model's ability to understand and reason with complex information from images, charts, and text across diverse academic subjects, exposing the significant challenges even top models face in genuine comprehension. Chen's background in complex QA, table reasoning, and his experience at Google DeepMind on projects like Gemini inform his approach. He understands that effective benchmarks must anticipate how models might "cheat" by memorizing data or avoiding visual analysis. His lab also actively researches video understanding and generation models (e.g., UniVideo, Vamba), ensuring his evaluation work is grounded in practical model-building challenges. Now at Meta's Super Intelligence Lab, Chen continues his focus on multi-modal data and evaluation, representing the deep yet often unseen contributions of Chinese talent in shaping the fundamental tools of the AI industry.

marsbit1 h fa

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

marsbit1 h fa

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written at the Moment Cursor Sold for $600 Billion

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: On Cursor's $60 Billion Sale Many aspiring founders see massive exits like Cursor's $60B sale and wonder why they can't achieve the same, often concluding opportunities are exhausted. But great companies aren't built in obvious, crowded spaces. Cursor, like Stripe, Figma, and Shopify before it, started with a non-consensus belief about the future. Before ChatGPT, they believed AI would transform knowledge work. They focused on a genuinely exciting domain, became their own customer, and obsessed over power users. Their journey involved years of "glass-chewing" effort before the market was ready. The pattern is consistent: identify a long-term technological shift, find a missed entry point, and execute for years before the trend becomes obvious. First-generation products (PayPal, Adobe, Amazon) prove a market exists. Second-generation winners (Stripe, Figma, Shopify) rebuild that market around new insights, technology, or changing customer behaviors. Founders must identify their phase in the cycle. Early entrants like Coinbase or Cursor focus on making new technology usable for power users. Later entrants find the "yin" to the established "yang"—the blind spots incumbents miss as they grow distant from individual users. The key is deep market immersion. Use every product in your space. Talk to users. Build an audience. Stop looking for ideas and start *seeing* them everywhere. Then, choose one. The idea must offer a 10x improvement or solve a "hair-on-fire" pain point—something severe enough that users are already crafting workarounds. When building, avoid feature bloat. Ask: why would someone switch? Great startups rarely force new behaviors; they improve familiar workflows with drastically lower friction (e.g., Cursor forked VS Code instead of creating a new editor). Distribution is the underestimated moat. Before product-market fit, achieve distribution-market fit. How do customers discover new tools? Founders like those at Airbnb, Stripe, and Cursor did unscalable, manual work to recruit early users. The final, unteachable ingredient is resilience. Cursor built for years pre-market, faced rejection, and persisted. So did Airbnb, Nvidia, and Rain (which launched post-FTX collapse). The lesson isn't that these founders were smarter, but that they stayed in the game long enough for their insights to compound. Framework: Spot technological cycles. Cultivate unique insight. Obsess over your market. Talk to customers. Find a hair-on-fire problem. Build the simplest wedge. Win your distribution channel. Above all, don't quit when it gets hard. Most people won't do these things consistently. The few who do build the next generation of great companies. Go build.

marsbit1 h fa

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written at the Moment Cursor Sold for $600 Billion

marsbit1 h fa

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619)

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619): Market Insights & Analysis This weekly digest curates in-depth analysis often lost in the information flow, focusing on key insights across macro trends, investment, and technology. **Macro & Geopolitics:** With the Strait of Hormuz reopening and military conflict shifting to negotiation, markets are pivoting from "war shock" to "supply restoration." Trades include shorting crude risk premiums, longing airlines/tourism, Asian energy importers, and bond duration, while shorting inflation expectations. LNG, fertilizer, and chemical chains are also being repriced. **Investment & VC:** Ray Dalio advises against betting on concentrated AI giants dominating indices, advocating for diversified portfolios of high-quality, low-correlation assets instead. Analysis covers the 4-year crypto cycle, predicting the core surviving product by 2029 will be asset trading markets. Current BTC metrics suggest a potential bottoming zone, presenting a patient accumulation window. SpaceX's high-profile IPO at a $2.1T valuation faces scrutiny over fundamentals, with key watchpoints being its likely inclusion in the Nasdaq index and Q2 earnings. Concerns are raised about potential "gamma squeeze" and systemic risks if its narrative-driven valuation gets amplified by passive index funds. Robinhood (HOOD) is noted for breaking its high correlation with crypto, bolstered by its stock trading and new underwriting business. **Web3 & AI:** A warning highlights ~$1.8T in off-balance-sheet AI infrastructure commitments (purchase commitments, leases) as a potential systemic risk if AI monetization lags. AI models are being used for World Cup predictions, adding a new layer for betting markets. A cost breakdown of a $20 AI subscription reveals the supply chain from model companies to cloud, GPUs, and power. **Prediction Markets:** The emergence of prediction market "concept stocks" is noted, with Robinhood developing its own platform, Rothera, signaling a shift from market competition to a "channel war" for user access. **CeFi & DeFi:** The SpaceX IPO tested perpetual contract mechanisms for pre-IPO assets, highlighting challenges in handling corporate actions like stock splits on-chain. The de-pegging of STRC (Strategy's preferred share) to ~$89 reflects market concerns over MicroStrategy's capital structure and BTC-backed leverage model. BlackRock's covered-call Bitcoin ETF (BITA) offers yield but caps upside, appealing to yield-seeking institutions. **Ethereum:** An opinion piece argues Ethereum's core strength is its vast developer community and composability, solidifying its role as the default operating system for the financial internet. **Weekly Hot Topics:** Include the US-Iran deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Fed's hawkish hold, Anthropic restricting model access, SpaceX acquiring Cursor, and a humorous stock surge for "Liuliumei" due to its "LLM" ticker.

marsbit1 h fa

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619)

marsbit1 h fa

Alliance's Co-Founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written on the Occasion of Cursor's $60 Billion Sale

In this letter to entrepreneurs, Alliance reflects on the success of Cursor's $60 billion sale to Elon Musk, using it as a case study to counter the misconception that opportunities in crowded fields like AI or crypto are exhausted. The piece argues that great companies like Cursor, Stripe, Figma, and Shopify are not built by geniuses with perfect ideas, but by founders who start with a non-consensus belief about the future and build for years before that future becomes obvious to everyone. They identify long-term shifts, find overlooked entry points, and execute relentlessly. The framework for success involves: 1. **Identifying your place in the technology cycle**: Early-stage opportunities focus on making new tech usable for power users (e.g., Coinbase, Cursor). Later-stage opportunities involve finding the "yin" to an existing "yang"—the blind spots of first-generation players (e.g., Stripe vs. PayPal, Figma vs. Adobe). 2. **Cultivating unique insights**: Immerse yourself deeply in the market. Use every product, talk to users, and build an audience. Insights will emerge naturally from deep engagement. 3. **Finding a "hair-on-fire" problem**: Look for a 10x improvement or a severe, urgent pain point. The strongest signal is people already building clumsy workarounds. 4. **Building a focused MVP**: Don't just add features because you can. Ask why users would abandon their current tool for yours. The best startups rarely force new behaviors; they improve familiar workflows with drastically lower friction. 5. **Winning a distribution channel**: Distribution is often the moat. Before product-market fit, achieve channel-market fit. Find where your customers are and build an engine to reach them, even through unscalable, manual efforts initially. 6. **Persistence**: The final, unteachable ingredient is resilience. Success stories like Cursor, Airbnb, and Nvidia involved years of grinding, rejection, and perseverance when the path forward seemed unclear. The conclusion is that there is no secret. Most people fail to consistently execute these steps over the long term. The few who do build the companies that define the next era. The world is yours to create.

链捕手1 h fa

Alliance's Co-Founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written on the Occasion of Cursor's $60 Billion Sale

链捕手1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare PEOPLE

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente ConstitutionDAOPEOPLE.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)Dopo aver acquistato ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE)Scambia facilmente ConstitutionDAO (PEOPLE) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

450 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2024.12.12Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare PEOPLE

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di PEOPLE PEOPLE sono presentate come di seguito.

活动图片