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

cointelegraphPubblicato 2025-12-09Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-09

Introduzione

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

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

Will the Next Crypto Bull Run Start with On-Chain Trading of SpaceX?

This article presents a scenario-based forecast for the crypto industry from 2026 to 2029, arguing that the next major cycle will be driven not by technological narratives but by legal access to real-world assets. The author predicts that by mid-2026, pre-IPO perpetual contracts for top private companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic on platforms like Hyperliquid will become the primary gateway for accessing quality assets, as most crypto-native tokens fail to capture real value. The much-hyped AI x Crypto intersection largely fails except for prediction markets, which thrive on betting on AI model supremacy. By 2027, public blockchain foundations are forced to choose between catering to retail speculation or building compliant infrastructure for institutions, with many opting for the latter. Growth in stablecoins and tokenized private credit/equity hits a "triple ceiling" due to regulatory and political uncertainty rather than market demand. The pivotal shift is forecast for 2028. A major liquidation event in pre-IPO perpetuals exposes the structural flaw of synthetic markets lacking a real underlying asset anchor. In response, regulatory changes finally allow the public solicitation of private securities resales to verified accredited investors. This creates a legitimate secondary market for real company equity, which then becomes the core asset class of the new bull market, relegating synthetic perps to a niche role. By 2029, the industry becomes "boring" but foundational. Tokens without claims on real cash flows or assets cease trading. Stablecoin growth is steady but politically capped. Crypto infrastructure fades from view as it gets absorbed into traditional finance backends. The article's central thesis is that the key bottleneck for crypto's next phase is legal and regulatory channels for real asset ownership, not technology.

marsbit1 h fa

Will the Next Crypto Bull Run Start with On-Chain Trading of SpaceX?

marsbit1 h fa

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbit7 h fa

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

marsbit7 h fa

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手7 h fa

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

链捕手7 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片