Hardcore Breakdown of Polymarket's Fee Formula: How Did the Extreme Rate of 90+% Pop Up?

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-04-01Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-01

Анотація

Polymarket, a prediction market platform, recently faced backlash due to unexpectedly high transaction fees, with some users reporting fees as extreme as 94.8%. The issue stemmed from a temporary change in the fee calculation formula. The platform initially used an "old formula": fee = C × p × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent. However, a brief update to an "abnormal formula" removed a critical "× p" term, becoming: fee = C × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent. Since share prices (p) are always less than $1, this omission drastically increased fees, especially for very low-priced shares (near $0.001), as the fee was no longer scaled by the price. An exponent value of 0.5 in certain markets ("Weather" and "Economy") further exacerbated the curve, leading to the extreme rates. Polymarket quickly responded by implementing a "new formula": fee = C × feeRate × p × (1 - p), effectively setting the exponent to 1. This change significantly reduced fees, particularly for extreme price points, bringing maximum fees down to around 5%. The article advises users to avoid high fees by using limit orders (which are free and even offer a 20-25% maker rebate) or the platform's "Split" function to indirectly establish positions instead of market orders.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

Polymarket suddenly found itself in a fee controversy.

Last night, multiple community users discovered that they were charged abnormally high fees when trading on Polymarket, resulting in significantly reduced actual shares received or profits compared to before.

An overseas user, Frosen(@frosen), even posted a screenshot showing that when trying to place an order for 100 shares at a price of 0.1 cent in an "Economy" market, the potential winning profit displayed on the Polymarket frontend was only $5.2 (normally it should be $100) — corresponding to an outrageous fee rate of 94.8%!

What's going on? Is Polymarket that desperate for money? According to official disclosures from Polymarket and community investigations, Odaily found that the direct cause of this unexpected situation is that Polymarket modified the platform's fee formula last night.

In short, Polymarket changed the formula versions three times last night:

  • First, the "Old Formula": fee = C × p × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent;
  • Then the first change, the formula that caused the unexpected situation (referred to as the "Anomalous Formula"): fee = C × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent;
  • After realizing the issue, Polymarket made a correction, resulting in the current version's "New Formula": fee = C × feeRate × p × (1 - p);
  • It's important to note that in all three formulas, C refers to the number of shares traded, p refers to the price of the shares traded, and feeRate and exponent are variables.

Deconstructing the Anomalous Formula: How Did the Outrageous 94.8% Fee Rate Happen?

You don't need to worry too much about the mathematical details. By comparing the "Old Formula" and the "Anomalous Formula," you can simply see that the latter only removed a " × p" (this is the multiplication symbol, not a lowercase X) compared to the former, meaning it ultimately multiplied by the share price one less time.

Since the price of all shares on Polymarket is always less than $1, this would inevitably cause the overall fee to increase. The lower the share price, the more pronounced the increase in the fee due to one less multiplication — when the share price is close to 0, it could lead to very absurd fee rates.

As for how outrageous this fee could become, it also depends on the variable ^exponent, which exists in both the old and anomalous formulas. ^exponent directly translates to "raised to the power of exponent"; this variable is mainly used to control the steepness of the fee curve.

According to Mustafa, an official from Polymarket, the anomalous formula last night only introduced the exponent in the "Weather" and "Economy" market categories (other markets could ignore this variable by setting the parameter to 1). Furthermore, according to disclosures by overseas KOL Quant Chad(@Autonomous_Chad), the exponent parameter set for these two major markets at the time was 0.5.

Now, back to Frosen's case, plug the corresponding numbers into the anomalous formula: fee = C × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent. It is known that C equals 100, meaning Frosen wanted to order 100 shares; p equals 0.001, i.e., $0.001 (0.1 cent); exponent equals 0.5, meaning perform an exponentiation operation on (p × (1 - p)); the final fee rate is 94.8%.

Throwing this directly to AI allows us to inversely deduce that the feeRate level at the time was 0.03, and also reconstruct the detailed formula calculation Polymarket performed for this order.

Simply put, based on the anomalous formula, Polymarket calculated that the fee for this order should be $0.0948. Since Polymarket deducts fees for buy orders by directly deducting the corresponding value in shares, and the share price at the time was only $0.001, it meant deducting 94.8 shares. Therefore, Frosen ultimately received only 5.2 shares, and even if the prediction was correct, the potential profit would only be $5.2.

Polymarket's Remedial Measures

Shortly after the abnormal fee issue emerged, Polymarket quickly responded by changing the formula to the current version: fee = C × feeRate × p × (1 - p). Compared to the anomalous formula, the new formula removed the "^exponent" — essentially, it increased the exponent parameter in the anomalous formula fee = C × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent from 0.5 to 1.

In the anomalous formula, the effect of ^exponent was to perform an exponentiation operation on the data set p × (1-p). In the actual operational context of Polymarket, the theoretical result range of p × (1 - p) is between "0.000999 - 0.25" — the closer p is to 0.5 (share price closer to $0.5), the closer this data set is to 0.25; the closer p is to 0 or 1 (share price closer to $0 or $1, with extremes at $0.001 and $0.999), the closer this data set is to 0.000999.

Within the range of "0.000999 - 0.25", regardless of the value taken, when the exponent parameter is increased from 0.5 to 1, it directly reduces the final fee result in the formula operation, i.e., lowers the overall fee.

More importantly, this reduction has a more pronounced inhibitory effect on the abnormally high fee rates near extreme low prices — when p × (1-p)=0.000999, the fee under the new formula is only about 3.16% of the fee under the anomalous formula, equivalent to a reduction of about 96.84%; whereas when p × (1-p)=0.25, the fee under the new formula is 50% of that under the anomalous formula.

As shown in Polymarket's official documentation, after the new formula was implemented, the fee rate at extremes in the "Weather" and "Economy" market categories has now been reduced to 5%.

How Can Retail Users Avoid Fees?

I know most users can't be bothered to look at the formulas above but are still concerned about Polymarket's current fee issues.

Regarding this, Mustafa mentioned in the official Discord: "If you are worried about fees, you can place limit orders for free, and after this new update, you can also get a 20%-25% maker rebate — this means that when your limit order is filled, you will receive 20%-25% of the taker fee paid by the counterparty. So not only are you trading for free, but you can even get paid by trading and providing competitive liquidity."

So change your habits. Try to avoid taking orders directly. Switch to using limit orders more often. You can also try using Polymarket's Split function more to indirectly build a position by placing a reverse limit order to sell the other side of shares.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat was the direct cause of the unusually high fees on Polymarket as described in the article?

AThe direct cause was a modification to Polymarket's fee formula. The platform changed to an 'abnormal formula' which removed a '× p' (multiplication by the price) from the previous formula, causing fees to increase significantly, especially for shares with prices near zero.

QWhat was the specific 'abnormal formula' that caused the issue, and how did it differ from the old one?

AThe 'abnormal formula' was: fee = C × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent. It differed from the old formula (fee = C × p × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent) by removing one multiplication by the share price (× p).

QHow did the 'exponent' parameter in the formula contribute to the extreme 94.8% fee rate in the user Frosen's case?

AThe exponent parameter, set to 0.5 for 'Weather' and 'Economics' markets, made the fee curve steeper. For a share price (p) of $0.001, the calculation (p × (1 - p))^0.5 resulted in a very high fee, which when deducted from the low-value shares, led to the effective 94.8% rate.

QWhat is the new, corrected fee formula that Polymarket implemented after the incident?

AThe new formula is: fee = C × feeRate × p × (1 - p). This is equivalent to setting the exponent parameter to 1 in the previous abnormal formula structure, which significantly reduces fees, especially for shares with extreme prices.

QWhat advice does the article give to users who want to avoid paying high fees on Polymarket?

AThe article advises users to place free limit orders instead of market orders. Additionally, users can utilize Polymarket's Split function to indirectly build a position by placing a limit order to sell the other side of the trade. Limit orders also qualify for a 20%-25% maker rebate on the taker's fee.

Пов'язані матеріали

In Conversation with Ray Dalio: We Are Currently in an AI Bubble, with 1% of My Portfolio in Bitcoin

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, warns in an interview that the current AI boom shows classic bubble characteristics, which could lead to significant economic downturns as seen in past cycles like 1929 or 2000. He explains that speculative enthusiasm, fueled by debt and overvaluation, often precedes a crash when rising rates or taxation force asset sales, causing widespread losses and recession. Dalio also outlines his "Big Cycle" theory, describing an approximate 80-year pattern where widening wealth gaps, massive government deficits, and shifting geopolitical power (like China's rise) create internal conflict and global instability. He emphasizes that we are in a late-cycle, transitional phase where traditional powers like the US and UK face decline. For personal wealth protection, Dalio advises diversification beyond cash into assets like stocks, bonds, real estate, and particularly gold, which he prefers over Bitcoin. While he holds about 1% of his portfolio in Bitcoin as a non-printable hard asset, he views gold as more secure from technological or governmental threats. Regarding AI's impact, Dalio believes it will disproportionately benefit capital owners, worsening inequality by replacing both physical and cognitive labor. He suggests that human intuition and emotional intelligence, combined with AI, will be key for future workers. On taxation, Dalio argues that wealth taxes are impractical and risk triggering asset sell-offs, reducing productive investment. He points to the UK as a cautionary example of debt, low productivity, and political strife. Geopolitically, Dalio foresees a more regionalized world, with the US showing weakness in prolonged conflicts like with Iran, akin to past imperial declines. The ideal outcome, he suggests, is coexisting powerful blocs (e.g., Americas, China-Asia Pacific) without major war.

marsbit2 год тому

In Conversation with Ray Dalio: We Are Currently in an AI Bubble, with 1% of My Portfolio in Bitcoin

marsbit2 год тому

Daily 7.2 Trillion KRW: Foreign Capital's Record Net Buying on Friday! Wall Street Says Headwinds for Korean Stock Fund Flows Have Subsided

South Korean stock market sees a dramatic shift in fund flows. On July 31, foreign investors made a record net purchase of approximately KRW 7.2 trillion in KOSPI stocks, marking a fundamental reversal from the persistent large-scale net outflows seen in previous months. This contributed to a significant narrowing of foreign net selling in July to KRW 9.8 trillion, down sharply from KRW 48.4 trillion in June and KRW 44.5 trillion in May. Simultaneously, domestic institutional pressure eased. South Korean pension funds and asset managers turned to a net buying position in July, purchasing KRW 1.0 trillion worth of KOSPI shares, contrasting with net sales in May and June. Market volatility is expected to be dampened by new financial regulations. Effective July 31, the Financial Services Commission tightened access for retail investors to single-stock leveraged ETFs by raising the minimum cash deposit requirement. Trading volumes for these products subsequently dropped to about 50% of their monthly average. Citigroup Research maintains its year-end KOSPI target of 10,000 points. The firm cites several supportive factors: the substantial easing of headwinds from capital outflows, a robust fundamental outlook for the semiconductor sector, historically low market valuations, strong economic fundamentals, and the potential for policy support from financial authorities if needed.

marsbit2 год тому

Daily 7.2 Trillion KRW: Foreign Capital's Record Net Buying on Friday! Wall Street Says Headwinds for Korean Stock Fund Flows Have Subsided

marsbit2 год тому

Thanks to Dice Rolls, Bitcoin Keys Are Stored Offline, But Not Everyone Will Do It

The article discusses using dice rolls to generate secure Bitcoin wallet seeds, providing entropy independent of potentially flawed hardware random number generators. It explains that each fair dice roll offers about 2.585 bits of entropy, with around 50 rolls needed for a standard 12-word seed phrase and 99+ recommended for higher security. This method gained attention after a vulnerability was revealed in some Coldcard hardware wallets, where a faulty firmware RNG (dating back to 2021) compromised generated keys. The analysis notes that while a dice-generated main seed was safe from this specific flaw, other Coldcard functions (like creating paper wallets, backup keys, or passwords) could still be vulnerable if they used the defective RNG. The piece argues that while dice-based entropy is technically robust, the manual process is error-prone, tedious, and unrealistic for most new users, who might make mistakes in recording or inputting rolls. It concludes that while manual entropy generation should remain an option for advanced users, the long-term goal is to develop reliable, user-friendly hardware and software that securely generates randomness without requiring specialized knowledge. Coldcard users are advised to check their firmware version and replace any secondary secrets (like paper wallet keys) created with vulnerable devices, while also considering multi-signature setups with devices from different manufacturers for added security.

cryptonews.ru7 год тому

Thanks to Dice Rolls, Bitcoin Keys Are Stored Offline, But Not Everyone Will Do It

cryptonews.ru7 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片