The 4 Truths Behind Polymarket's LP Market-Making Incentives and the Fee Trap

Odaily星球日报Published on 2026-03-22Last updated on 2026-03-22

Abstract

Polymarket, a prediction market platform, has recently shifted its incentive structure towards rewarding Liquidity Providers (LPs) to solve its core problem of low market depth. While most markets remain free, it now charges a taker fee on specific markets (all Crypto markets, NCAAB basketball, and Serie A football) to fund new LP reward programs. The fee is calculated on a symmetric curve, highest near 50% probability. The platform has introduced two main incentive systems: one rewards LPs whose limit orders are executed (Maker Incentives), and another rewards LPs simply for providing resting liquidity, even if orders aren't filled (Liquidity Incentives). A third system allows anyone to sponsor additional rewards for specific markets. A key argument is that the fees paid and rewards earned could be a strong anti-sybil metric for a potential POLY token airdrop, valuing genuine liquidity provision over mere trading volume. However, a counter viewpoint argues the LP program is a potential trap. Critics claim that the displayed ROI for LPs is misleading as it doesn't account for "LP wear and tear"—losses from filled orders that can't be easily exited. They state professional market makers avoid it due to insider trading risks and that the model of subsidizing liquidity with massive daily rewards is unsustainable. The concern is that widespread fee implementation could erase Polymarket's competitive edge over traditional betting platforms. Proposed solutions include a fixed fe...

Original Author:shtanga0x&securezer0

Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Translator | Wenser (@wenser2010)

Editor's Note: Recently, posts about Polymarket's LP incentives for the NCAA "March Madness" have been all over the X platform timeline. At the same time, official Polymarket members hinted at a major announcement coming next Monday, with the community speculating it could be funding or token launch news.

After the U.S. SEC and CFTC cleared the path for airdrops on crypto platforms through the five-part test, POLY has become the "last hope for airdrop farming" in the eyes of many, and LP market-making might become one of the key metrics for the airdrop.

In light of this, Odaily Planet Daily will use the opposing views of two analysts on LP market-making incentives to provide Polymarket users with a more comprehensive perspective. The following is the compiled content, with some information edited.

Positive View: The 4 Major Categories Behind Polymarket's LP Incentive Program

Recently, Polymarket's incentive mechanism underwent a quiet upgrade, shifting its focus to Liquidity Providers (LPs). For the past few years, the platform has maintained a "zero trading fee" strategy, but since the beginning of this year, it has quietly introduced fees for specific prediction markets and launched two major market maker reward programs.

On the surface, charging trading fees seems unfavorable for traders, but in reality, it addresses the core structural pain point of prediction markets—the liquidity problem.

The new fee structure aims to fund incentive programs, rewarding users who provide limit orders and maintain order book depth. Therefore, both Polymarket and its users benefit from: narrower spreads, richer order books, and a better trading experience—especially in the fast-paced crypto markets.

Its rollout path is also very clear, showing a trend from single to multiple:

  • January 2026: 15-minute Crypto markets
  • February 2026: Expanded to 5-minute Crypto markets + NCAAB college basketball + Serie A football
  • March 6, 2026: Expanded to all Crypto markets (covering 1H, 4H, daily, weekly events, etc.)

Based on the above information, this article will detail how the new fee and reward system works—and why fees paid + rewards earned could become a potential anti-sybil metric in the POLY airdrop. This is not a simple monetization operation; it's Polymarket showing through action that what it truly wants is liquidity, not volume-bot farming.

Part I. Complete Analysis of the New Taker Fee Mechanism

The vast majority of Polymarket markets remain completely free. Deposits, withdrawals, and trading (for most event markets) still have zero platform fees.

Trading fees currently only apply to the taker side (taker orders) and cover three types of markets:

  • All Crypto up/down markets (15min, 5min, 1H, 4H, daily, weekly, etc.)
  • NCAAB (US College Basketball Tournament)
  • Serie A (Italian Football League)

The key point is that taker fees only apply to markets created after the fee activation date; existing prediction events created beforehand are unaffected.

The fee formula is uniform (where C = number of shares traded, p = share price/market probability, fees rounded to 4 decimal places, minimum fee is 0.0001 USDC):

The effective fee rate follows a symmetric probability curve:

  • Fees are highest when the probability is near 50% (highest outcome uncertainty);
  • Fees approach 0 when the probability is near 0 or 1 (higher outcome certainty).

For example, for a $100 trade in a Crypto market:

  • p=0.50 → trading fee ≈ $0.44;
  • p=0.10 or 0.90 → trading fee ≈ $0.02.

The probability curve for sports events is similar, but the midpoint fee (around 50% probability) is slightly higher. The fee direction is specifically:

  • Buy: Fee deducted from the share quantity;
  • Sell: Fee deducted from the USDC funds;
  • Market-making incentives are paid in USDC.

It's worth mentioning that the Polymarket platform does not keep the entire fee pool; a fixed percentage of the fees (20% for Crypto markets, 25% for sports prediction events) is directly returned to LPs. (Note: Polymarket's US compliant platform uses a simple fixed 0.01% fee. This analysis only discusses the global CLOB platform, which introduced the new 2026 fee system.)

Part II. Market Maker Incentive Program (Limit Order Execution Rewards)

Incentives in this section only cover markets where taker fees are collected. This means only limit orders that are executed by traders (taken) are eligible for corresponding rewards; simply placing an order without execution does not count.

The reward amount is calculated in the same way as the taker fee. Each participant's reward is proportional to their trading volume, and the total prize pool consists of a portion of the collected fees (20% for Crypto markets, 25% for sports prediction events).

Competition occurs only within specific prediction events; LP orders only compete against other LPs in the same liquidity pool for that event.

Daily incentives are sent directly in USDC to the corresponding wallet address.

Part III. Liquidity Incentives (Idle Order Incentives)

The second incentive system is provided by the Polymarket platform and applies to all prediction events (including those without trading fees).

The core difference is: No order execution is required; you can earn money just by placing orders on the order book to provide liquidity.

Each prediction event defines several parameters that determine eligibility:

  • Maximum incentive spread (e.g., ±4 cents)
  • Minimum order size
  • Daily total reward pool

The platform samples the order book every minute, recording 10,080 snapshots per week.

The reward calculation formula is highly detailed:

1. Distance Score (Quadratic Equation)

Where,

V - Maximum incentive spread

s - Distance from the midpoint

Orders closer to the midpoint score exponentially higher.

2. Two-Sided Score (YES/NO Complementary Structure)

Bid and ask orders are scored separately, considering the complementary structure of Yes/No markets.

3. Q-value Minimization Adjustment

Providing liquidity on both sides of the order book scores higher.

One-sided quotes are penalized unless the market probability is near 0 or 1.

4. Final Score

All LP scores are normalized and aggregated over time to determine each participant's proportional share of the market's reward pool.

Rewards are distributed in USDC at UTC midnight, with a minimum payout of $1.

You can currently view active reward prediction events and personal earnings in real-time at polymarket.com/rewards. The incentive spread range is highlighted in blue on the order book interface. Users can also check the Polymarket official documentation.

Currently, one-sided orders can still earn points (but heavily discounted), while two-sided quotes are prioritized for incentive points. Rewards are calculated separately for each individual prediction event. There is no cross-event calculation. Effectively, the system rewards traders who maintain tight spreads and balanced liquidity near the market midpoint, enhancing the trading experience for all users.

Part IV. Sponsored LP Incentives

The third mechanism allows anyone to directly add USDC to sponsor LP incentives for specific markets, attracting LPs to provide market-making. Sponsors can add or withdraw funds at any time; unused funds are automatically returned.

The rules for this mechanism are identical to the Liquidity Incentive program—just place orders, no execution required.

A typical case is the prediction event "Will Jesus Christ return by 2027?", where a platform user invested $70,000 in February as an LP incentive. They now receive about $57 per day in liquidity incentives, making this event one of the deepest markets on the platform. This mechanism allows the community itself to deeply activate market liquidity for any prediction event without waiting for official Polymarket action.

Part V. The Strongest Anti-Sybil Metric for the POLY Airdrop

At first glance, Polymarket seems to just need more traders.

However, if most users rely solely on market orders, the platform will quickly face liquidity problems.

Polymarket does not rely on centralized market makers, so if limit orders are insufficient, the order book becomes sparse.

In this case, it becomes difficult to buy, sell, or execute large orders without high slippage and sudden fee increases.

Polymarket doesn't need volume-bot farmers; it needs LPs who provide real value.

Previously, everyone only focused on trading volume, thinking high volume was the key to getting the airdrop. However, the new fee structure and reward program hint at a different incentive model—what matters is not just volume, but participation in events that generate fees and need liquidity. In other words, the platform rewards targeted LPs, not just passive limit orders.

The reward distribution formula effectively reveals the type of liquidity Polymarket values most. The scoring system evaluates:

  • Proximity of the order to the midpoint
  • Order size
  • Balance between bid and ask prices

Therefore, rewards become a direct measure of a trader's value to the platform's liquidity. If a trader consistently earns rewards, it means their orders are actively improving market liquidity and execution quality. Here are examples of potential incentives for market participants:

  • Will Arctic sea ice reach its maximum extent this winter?—Existed for 3 months, volume less than $20k, liquidity reward only $9;
  • Will Bitcoin reach $75,000 in March?—Existed for two weeks, volume reached $3 million, liquidity reward $142;
  • Bitcoin Up/Down - 15 minutes Covers hundreds of events, daily volume millions of USD, daily fees ~$10k, liquidity reward $2000.

More important than specific events is the truth revealed by the data—taker fees and earned liquidity rewards are much harder to manipulate artificially compared to simple volume metrics. Systematically earning market-making incentives requires capital, risk management, and constant presence, which significantly削弱 (weakens) the advantage of airdrop farmers and instead benefits genuine market participants.

Conclusion: Taker Fees and LP Incentives May Become Key Metrics for POLY Airdrop

Future POLY token distribution may depend not only on trading volume but also on taker fees paid and LP rewards earned. These metrics are transparent, measurable, and highly aligned with the platform's needs. In this model, rewards are not tied to farming volume but to contributions that truly optimize the platform's trading experience: liquidity, stability, and efficient price discovery.

In other words, the best-performing LPs are the most valuable users. The most hardcore Polymarket players were never the ones with the highest volume, but the LPs who provided the deepest order book liquidity.

Also attached: Polymarket LP Market-Making Guide: 《Now is the Best Time to Interact with Polymarket (Exclusive Tutorial)》

Of course, there are always different views in the market. Some believe that Polymarket's LP incentive program appears to be "spreading money for liquidity" but is actually a profit-making scheme, a trap set for LP users. Let's hear the opposing view.

Opposing View: Is Polymarket's LP Incentive a Platform Scam? Are LPs Actually a "Pay-to-Lose" Trap?

Regarding Polymarket's recently launched LP incentive program, arbitrage trader and Polymarket/Kalshi bot player securezer0 directly called the much-hyped "Polymarket Rewards Farming" a massive psychological operation, pointing out that it is a collective hype campaign paid for directly by the platform or heavily incentivized KOLs.

The Truth for LPs: Another Form of "Paying to Lose Money"?

Multiple LPs stated bluntly: The essence of Polymarket's current LP mechanism is "spending money to incur losses."

Where is the problem? The leaderboard directly incorporates LP rewards into the P&L data display but remains silent on a key concept—LP wear and tear (impermanent loss).

When your position gets filled on one side, you often cannot sell at a reasonable price, or cannot sell at all before the event resolves. This part of the capital loss is systematically hidden by the platform. The real ROI data is far lower than the book value. For most LP participants, their profit is actually negative. They just believe the POLY airdrop will cover the losses—this is not an arbitrage incentive program; it's a trade based on platform faith.

Why Are Professional Market Makers Reluctant to Enter?

Professional market makers generally avoid Polymarket LP market-making for one core reason: Insider trading risk is real.

Both Polymarket and Kalshi had to offer equity in exchange for liquidity to get professional market makers to the table—this in itself speaks volumes.

Effective LP operation is an extremely complex automated risk control system. The myth of "low barrier to entry, high returns" for LPs only holds true if Polymarket continues to heavily subsidize liquidity rewards—a path that is fundamentally unsustainable in the long run.

The Platform's Real Dilemma: Needing to "Create" Millions of Dollars Out of Thin Air Daily

Liquidity shortage is the primary driver behind Polymarket gradually turning on the fee switch.

To maintain liquidity rewards for various prediction events and keep more USDC liquidity on the platform, Polymarket needs to consume millions of dollars daily to maintain trading depth. If no better solution is found, the platform has no choice but to charge fees on every buy and sell, using this revenue to support investors and market makers.

And once fees are fully implemented, ordinary users will be in an extremely awkward position—because traditional sports betting platforms might actually be more cost-effective, for the following reasons:

  • Odds are comparable after factoring in fees;
  • Traditional platforms offer cashback and monetary incentives;
  • Rules are clear and protected by regulation;
  • Insider traders face account bans and even prison risks.

3 Truly Viable Solutions: Fixed Fees on Profit, POLY Liquidity Pools, Extended Product Fees

Instead of seeking temporary relief, it's better to address the root cause: Target the vampires, not the users. Charge fees on those arbitrage bots that extract USDC from real users. After all, these bots are the source of polluted liquidity. Specifically, the methods are:

Charge a fixed 1% fee only on profits, i.e., only on the net gain (sell price minus cost basis), not touching the principal, preserving user trading experience.

Build native liquidity pools with POLY tokens. Programmatically provide liquidity for various prediction events at the protocol level, deeply binding token economics with liquidity provision.

Charge on extended products, not core products. Parlays, derivatives, leverage—these are natural fee scenarios; touching these won't harm the fundamental user experience.

Currently, the moat of Polymarket's platform business still needs strengthening. Zero fees and better odds are its most important value anchors区别于 (differentiating it from) traditional betting platforms. Abandoning these two points for short-term revenue is tantamount to destroying its own great wall.

Related Questions

QWhat are the four main categories of Polymarket's LP incentive programs as described in the article?

AThe four main categories are: 1. The new taker fee mechanism, 2. The market maker incentive program (limit order execution rewards), 3. The liquidity incentive program (idle order rewards), and 4. The sponsored LP incentive program.

QAccording to the opposing view, why do professional market makers avoid providing liquidity on Polymarket?

AProfessional market makers avoid it due to the real risk of insider trading, which necessitates platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi to offer equity in exchange for their liquidity, indicating a fundamental problem.

QWhat is the core structural problem that Polymarket's new fee structure aims to solve?

AThe new fee structure aims to solve the core structural problem of liquidity scarcity in prediction markets by funding incentive programs to reward users who provide limit orders and maintain order book depth.

QWhat is the 'LP wear and tear' mentioned in the opposing viewpoint, and how is it hidden?

A'LP wear and tear' refers to the capital loss that occurs when a liquidity provider's position is filled on one side and cannot be sold at a reasonable price before market resolution. It is systematically hidden because the platform's leaderboard displays LP rewards in the P&L data but omits these losses, making the real ROI appear higher than it is.

QWhat are the three proposed solutions from the opposing argument to address Polymarket's liquidity funding issue without harming users?

AThe three proposed solutions are: 1. Charge a flat 1% fee only on profits (net gains from selling price minus cost basis), 2. Build a native liquidity pool using the POLY token to programmatically provide liquidity, and 3. Charge fees on extended products like parlays, derivatives, and leverage instead of the core betting markets.

Related Reads

Sequoia Dialogue with Jensen Huang: Computing Model Undergoes a 60-Year Transformation; You Won't Be Replaced by AI, But You Will Be Dimensionality-Reduced by 'Those Who Master AI'

NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang, in a conversation with Sequoia Capital's Konstantine Buhler, argues that we are witnessing the most significant computing shift in 60 years—from retrieval-based to generative computing. Instead of just storing and retrieving data, future systems will generate highly personalized content (text, images, video) on demand, powered by massive "AI factories." Huang envisions a global "intelligence network" that will envelop the planet, following the historical patterns of energy and communication grids. He outlines a five-layer investment framework: 1) Energy, 2) Chips/Computers, 3) Infrastructure (data centers), 4) AI Models, and 5) Applications. He predicts this ecosystem will reach a scale of $20 trillion annually. Crucially, Huang pushes back against fears of AI-driven job loss. He distinguishes between specific "tasks" (e.g., typing, analyzing images) and overall "jobs" (e.g., CEO, radiologist). While AI automates tasks, it increases efficiency and demand for the higher-value problem-solving aspects of professions, thus creating more jobs and "up-leveling" careers. The real risk, he asserts, is not being replaced by AI, but being outperformed by someone who effectively leverages it. He urges everyone to embrace AI as a tool for augmented capability and innovation.

marsbit4m ago

Sequoia Dialogue with Jensen Huang: Computing Model Undergoes a 60-Year Transformation; You Won't Be Replaced by AI, But You Will Be Dimensionality-Reduced by 'Those Who Master AI'

marsbit4m ago

"I Don't Need a Better Model Anymore": A Panorama of AI Users Under a Reddit Hot Post

Titled "I Don't Need a Better Model Anymore": AI User Reactions on Reddit Anthropic recently released Claude Fable 5, its first publicly available 'Mythos'-tier model, achieving 80.3% on the SWE-Bench Pro benchmark and significantly outperforming its predecessor and competitors. However, a viral Reddit post titled "Claude Fable made me realize I don't need better models anymore" highlighted a growing user sentiment of "good enough." Top comments expressed "model fatigue," with users stating that earlier models like Opus 4.5/4.8 already sufficed for their workflows. High cost was a key concern, as Fable 5's API is nearly twice the price of Opus 4.8, with users questioning the return on investment and suggesting the field has hit a plateau. The most frequent complaint targeted Fable 5's stringent safety filters. Designed to intercept high-risk requests (e.g., cybersecurity), the system was perceived as overly conservative. Users reported frequent rejections for routine security-related tasks, leading to automatic fallbacks to the older Opus model. Paying users were particularly frustrated, feeling they paid a premium for a less usable product. Dissenting voices came from users with heavy, complex tasks. For workloads like high-energy physics simulations with thousands of code lines, Fable 5's improved long-context understanding and error detection represented a significant, worthwhile leap—described as moving from a "college player to an NBA starter." The debate underscores a divergence between benchmark performance and practical utility. For most users, current models meet their needs, making further advances relevant only for extreme use-cases. The discussion also raised concerns about a potential "Public AI Freeze," where the most powerful models (like the restricted Mythos 5) remain exclusive to enterprises and governments, while public offerings stagnate. The launch presents two report cards: one of technical excellence and another of user skepticism. Fable 5's ultimate reception may depend on Anthropic's ability to refine its safety filters and justify its cost for specialized, high-demand users.

marsbit11m ago

"I Don't Need a Better Model Anymore": A Panorama of AI Users Under a Reddit Hot Post

marsbit11m ago

When AI Traffic Surpasses Humans, How Do You Prove You're Human?

With AI-generated web traffic surpassing human activity, websites face a crisis as AI agents bypass ads, avoid clicks, and scrape data without generating revenue. This disrupts the ad-based internet economy, diverting traffic and reducing site visits. In response, sites are blocking AI crawlers and deploying traps like Cloudflare's "honeypot" pages. Traditional CAPTCHAs are now ineffective against advanced AI. The focus has shifted to behavioral biometrics—analyzing unique human patterns such as cursor movement, typing rhythm, and keystroke dynamics. Companies like IBM and BioCatch use this data to distinguish humans from bots, even detecting fraud through behavioral inconsistencies. Two competing approaches aim to verify human identity centrally. Sam Altman’s World (formerly Worldcoin) uses iris scanning to create unique credentials, though it faces privacy concerns and regulatory bans. Alternatively, cryptographic zero-knowledge proofs offer anonymous verification without revealing personal data, championed by Vitalik Buterin to avoid centralized surveillance. However, both systems have flaws. Centralized solutions risk biometric data misuse, while decentralized models may be exploited through identity rental markets in economically unequal regions. Despite challenges, the author favors cryptographic methods for preserving privacy over pervasive behavioral monitoring that permanently captures and controls personal biometric data.

marsbit20m ago

When AI Traffic Surpasses Humans, How Do You Prove You're Human?

marsbit20m ago

2026 Landscape of Decentralized AI: Why is Blockchain the Inevitable "Antidote" for AI?

**The 2026 Landscape of Decentralized AI: Why Blockchain is the "Cure" AI Cannot Ignore** Decentralized AI addresses fundamental bottlenecks of centralized AI: scarce and expensive computational resources, excessive control concentration, unverifiable model outputs, and increasing difficulty in acquiring training data due to privacy and regulation. Blockchain offers a path to make intelligence open, verifiable, and economically accessible. The technical stack comprises three layers: 1. **Applications & Services**: The main crypto use cases are "Agentic Finance" (converting natural language into on-chain actions) and "Agentic Payments" for machine-to-machine commerce. Projects like Giza, Infinity Labs, Coinvest AI, and x402 (handling 173M+ transactions) are key players. 2. **Middleware**: This coordination layer enables agents to discover, identify, and transact. Notable projects include Gokite AI (specialized L1), Virtuals (an OS for the agent economy), and especially Bittensor—a network of specialized subnets forming competitive AI micro-economies. 3. **Infrastructure**: The capital-intensive layer providing raw resources. It includes decentralized compute (Akash, Render, Aethir), verifiable inference (Venice AI, OpenGradient), distributed training (Prime Intellect, Templar AI), decentralized storage (Filecoin, Walrus), and privacy/verification layers (Nillion, Arcium, Phala Network) using technologies like ZKPs, MPC, and TEEs. The outlook for 2026-2027 indicates AI demand outpacing infrastructure, with AI agents as a primary growth engine. Computation is becoming an asset class, with on-chain markets as its financial layer. Tokenomics is emerging as a structural advantage for coordinating capital, compute, and data in decentralized AI networks. While still early—with adoption uneven and revenue often trailing token incentives—projects like Bittensor, NEAR, and Virtuals demonstrate a shift from speculative narrative to a new model for coordinating intelligence.

marsbit23m ago

2026 Landscape of Decentralized AI: Why is Blockchain the Inevitable "Antidote" for AI?

marsbit23m ago

a16z Crypto Partner: Cash Flow is the Moat

Cash Flow as the Moat: A Playbook for Crypto Founders Historically, the most enduring businesses have been built by positioning themselves within the "flow of funds"—facilitating the creation and transfer of value in a network and extracting a portion of it. Cryptocurrency is the first modern technology natively built for this purpose. For startups, failing to architect products and businesses to leverage these principles means missing a major opportunity. Blockchains are inherently network businesses. Each transaction settles on a shared ledger, and every new participant strengthens the underlying network for all. Well-designed network tokens amplify this by aligning users, developers, and validators around growing the network, with value flowing back to contributors in a transparent feedback loop. This model is not new; companies from railroads and Standard Oil to Google, Meta, and AWS have thrived by inserting themselves into critical flows of value (goods, attention, compute). Financial markets make it even clearer: firms like Visa and major market makers generate immense revenue not by predicting markets but by being in the path of transactions. The combination of fund flow and network effects creates one of the most durable business structures. The high margins in traditional finance (payments, custody, lending, FX) represent prime targets. Crypto founders have the opportunity to build the next version—programmable, instant, global, and natively in the flow of funds. The frontier extends beyond finance to areas like computing/GPUs, AI training data, energy, robotics, and space—markets without entrenched intermediaries, ripe for building new, efficient value rails on programmable infrastructure. Founders should ask: Are you in the flow of funds today? Does your revenue scale 10x with the value of activity on your platform? Where in your target market are profit margins highest relative to value created? The opportunity is clear: embed your startup into the new flows of value and let the network effects accumulate.

marsbit25m ago

a16z Crypto Partner: Cash Flow is the Moat

marsbit25m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy 4

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing 4 (4) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy 4 (4) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your 4 (4)After purchasing your 4 (4), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade 4 (4)Easily trade 4 (4) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

4.2k Total ViewsPublished 2025.10.20Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy 4

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of 4 (4) are presented below.

活动图片