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

cointelegraphОпубліковано о 2025-12-09Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-09

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

EIP-8363 Quantitative Review: Cutting Staking 'Subsidies' – What Does Ethereum Hope to Gain?

**EIP-8363 Quantitative Review: Reducing Staking "Subsidies" – What Does Ethereum Want in Return?** EIP-8363 proposes burning an increasing portion of validator rewards as the staking rate rises, reaching 100% burn when 50% of ETH is staked. This analysis models its impact on issuance, yield, and staking equilibrium, examines whether ETH's yield explains its price, quantifies the chain economy's reliance on this yield, and presents conclusions. Key findings: 1. **EIP-1559 Burns Are Ineffective:** Post-merge, burning (via base fees) has collapsed by 98% and now offsets only 2.4% of new ETH issuance, making issuance policy Ethereum's sole remaining supply lever. 2. **EIP-8363's Real Impact:** At the current ~42.2M ETH staked, the proposal would cut issuance by ~58.6% and staking APR by ~56.4%, removing ~633k ETH ($1.55B) in annual dilution (0.53% of market cap). It's not zero issuance; that would require 43% more ETH staked. 3. **Self-Limiting Mechanism:** The design has a built-in equilibrium. At reasonable required returns (e.g., 2%), the system stabilizes at ~26% staking rate and ~0.48% annual inflation. 4. **Yield vs. Price:** No detectable statistical relationship exists between changes in staking yield and ETH price returns over 43 months. The natural 37% yield decline since 2023 did not drive price action. 5. **Chain Economy Dependence:** While LSTs like wstETH form ~34% of collateral in major lending markets, their utility as collateral remains if yield is positive. The direct revenue hit to protocols like Lido is significant (~50% of fee income) but not systemic. Staking-focused ETFs represent only 0.19% of ETH supply. 6. **Core Conflict:** The debate masks a zero-sum redistribution: cutting ~$1.55B in annual issuance transfers value from concentrated staking intermediaries (LST/LRT protocols, leverage players) to the dispersed majority of non-staking ETH holders. 7. **Outlook:** The proposal is economically sound for ETH's scarcity but politically difficult due to concentrated opposition. It is unlikely to pass in its current form.

marsbit1 год тому

EIP-8363 Quantitative Review: Cutting Staking 'Subsidies' – What Does Ethereum Hope to Gain?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片