Screwed by Polymarket, This Time the Bug Was a 'Time Warp'

marsbit发布于2026-03-09更新于2026-03-09

文章摘要

Polymarket, a prediction market platform, encountered a technical issue related to the transition from Eastern Standard Time (EST) to Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on March 8. The switch, which involves moving the clock forward by one hour, caused a disruption in the platform’s hourly cryptocurrency price prediction markets for assets like BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP. Due to the time change, the 2:00 AM hour effectively did not exist, leading Polymarket’s system to display an illogical time range of "March 8, 1-1 AM ET" for these events, instead of the expected one-hour duration. This anomaly affected both the front-end display and API data, causing confusion among users. One automated trading user reported significant losses exceeding $100,000, as their system relied on accurate end-time data to execute trades. The incident highlights a design flaw in using local time (ET) without accounting for daylight saving transitions, unlike mainstream financial systems that typically use UTC time to avoid such inconsistencies. Users have called for Polymarket to switch to UTC and compensate affected traders. The platform has not yet issued an official response.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

In conventional understanding, time is linear, but the crypto world has its "exceptions".

Yesterday, Eastern Time (ET) completed the switch from standard time to daylight saving time as per convention (generally on the second Sunday of March at 2:00 AM), moving the clock forward by one hour, jumping directly from 2:00 AM on March 8 to 3:00 AM. The time didn't vanish into thin air; it's just that the Eastern Time zone switches between Eastern Standard Time (EST) and Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) based on custom, aiming to artificially adjust the time scale to make fuller use of daylight hours (and save electricity in the process).

For daily life, this switch doesn't cause much impact, but on the prediction market Polymarket, yesterday's time zone switch directly sparked an unexpected controversy.

Polymarket Runs Into Timing Controversy

The controversy occurred around the "Crypto Up or Down" prediction events on Polymarket.

Polymarket offers cryptocurrency price movement prediction events with timeframes of year, month, week, day, 4 hours, 1 hour, 15 minutes, and 5 minutes, supporting major tokens like BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP. These events are automatically created and settled based on Eastern Time and have become a significant source of trading volume on Polymarket.

At 1:00 AM on March 8 (still Eastern Standard Time at that moment), Polymarket launched new 1-hour up/down prediction events for BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP. Links to the relevant events are below.

  • BTC (Final Result: Up): https://polymarket.com/event/bitcoin-up-or-down-march-8-1am-et
  • ETH (Final Result: Down): https://polymarket.com/event/ethereum-up-or-down-march-8-1am-et
  • SOL (Final Result: Down): https://polymarket.com/event/solana-up-or-down-march-8-1am-et
  • XRP (Final Result: Down): https://polymarket.com/event/xrp-up-or-down-march-8-1am-et

According to the event settlement rules — comparing the opening and closing prices of the 1-hour candle on Binance's USDT trading pairs starting from the event's beginning — the above four events have all been settled.

However, because the end time of this batch of events coincided with the daylight saving time switch, the moment Eastern Time reached 2:00 AM, it immediately jumped to 3:00 AM (meaning the period from 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM was skipped), causing some timing confusion for this batch of events on the Polymarket platform itself.

As shown on Polymarket's frontend interface, perhaps because 2:00 AM did not exist in yesterday's Eastern Time reckoning, the time period currently displayed for this batch of events is "March 8, 1-1 AM ET" (i.e., March 8, 1:00 AM - 1:00 AM). Under normal timing conditions, such events should display a 1-hour time period (for example, the previous day's similar event was "March 7, 1-2 AM ET", i.e., 1:00 AM - 2:00 AM). If accounting for the daylight saving time switch, a more reasonable time period for this batch would be "March 8, 1-3 AM ET" (i.e., 1:00 AM - 3:00 AM, still effectively 1 hour).

So no matter how you look at it, the currently displayed "March 8, 1-1 AM ET" is very strange.

Chinese user "Xiao Z" (@richrichardoz) posted on X regarding this, stating that besides the frontend, Polymarket's API also returned the "1-1 AM ET" time period, causing automated programs relying on the API data to "all crash", estimating losses exceeding $100,000 as a result.

"Xiao Z" further explained that the start time and end time being exactly the same is a market state that is logically impossible. Many automated trading systems rely on the end time to determine the trading window; this error directly caused their program to lose a large sum of money. Therefore, they suggested Polymarket change the time standard for relevant events to UTC time and compensate users affected by the data issue.

Besides this user, many other users have also commented under the relevant events expressing confusion, but as of writing, Polymarket has not responded through official channels.

Time Standards in Traditional Financial Markets

Looking back at this controversy, while the scale of impact isn't huge, it exposed a fundamental design flaw in Polymarket's "Crypto Up or Down" market events.

Influenced by historical customs, economic status, and industry practices, Eastern Time is still widely used across various industries. However, this is not particularly friendly to financial systems because Eastern Time switches between daylight saving time and standard time every year — artificially moving the clock forward or backward by one hour at specific times, creating "jumps" and "overlaps" in time respectively.

In modern financial systems, UTC time has long become the de facto universal standard. In the vast majority of financial infrastructure, internal systems typically use UTC timestamps as the sole standard time. Local times like Eastern Time are still used, but in system logic, they often only exist in the presentation layer面向用户. This design is precisely to avoid the uncertainty of time systems, ensuring that time remains monotonic, unique, and globally consistent in financial transactions, settlement, and automated systems.

The key矛盾 (contradiction) in this Polymarket controversy lies in the fact that the relevant events used Eastern Time as the timing standard but failed to fully consider the potential variable of the daylight saving time switch, ultimately causing confusion in the frontend and API data. Among the current user base of prediction markets, more and more participants are trading via APIs and automated programs. Some issues that originally only affected frontend display can easily be amplified into real financial losses in automated systems.

Judging by the outcome, this controversy might not be considered a serious incident, and theoretically it can only happen at most twice a year, but what it reveals is a more serious design problem — as prediction markets gradually move towards becoming financial infrastructure, they must also adhere to the engineering standards used by financial infrastructure.

相关问答

QWhat was the main issue that occurred on Polymarket due to the daylight saving time switch?

AThe main issue was a timing confusion caused by the switch from EST to EDT, where the clock jumped from 2:00 to 3:00, causing the 1-hour prediction events to display an illogical '1-1 AM ET' time period in both the frontend and API, disrupting automated trading systems.

QWhich cryptocurrencies were affected by the timing error in Polymarket's prediction events?

AThe affected prediction events were for BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP, specifically the 1-hour up or down markets that started at 1:00 AM ET on March 8.

QHow did the timing error impact users, particularly automated trading systems?

AThe error caused automated trading programs to malfunction because the API returned an identical start and end time ('1-1 AM ET'), which is logically impossible. This led to significant losses, with one user estimating over $100,000 in losses due to the disrupted trading windows.

QWhat time standard do traditional financial markets typically use to avoid issues like daylight saving time changes?

ATraditional financial markets predominantly use UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) as the internal standard for timestamps to ensure consistency, avoid ambiguities from local time changes, and maintain global synchronization in trading and settlement systems.

QWhat suggestion did users make to Polymarket to prevent similar issues in the future?

AUsers suggested that Polymarket should change the time standard for its events to UTC instead of Eastern Time (ET) to eliminate confusion from daylight saving transitions, and also compensate users who suffered losses due to the data error.

你可能也喜欢

Y-Combinator CEO的AI使用指南:未来属于会搭建复利型系统的人

本文核心观点:未来竞争力属于能围绕个人知识和工作流,搭建具备“复利”效应的AI系统的人,而非仅仅会使用AI工具的人。 Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan分享了他的实践:他不再将AI视为聊天工具,而是将其构建成个人的“操作系统”和“第二大脑”。这套系统能持续积累并结构化其所有的会议、阅读、人脉和信息,使其相互关联,形成可不断迭代和增强的知识网络。 关键实践包括: 1. **书籍镜像**:AI能深度消化书籍内容,并将其核心观点与他的个人经历、职业背景具体关联,生成专属的读书笔记。 2. **技能化**:将重复性工作流抽象为可复用的“技能”,并通过“元技能”不断创造和优化新技能,实现能力积累。 3. **知识库系统**:他维护着一个约10万页的结构化“大脑”,涵盖人物、公司、会议、阅读等所有信息,并能主动为会议等场景提供深度背景准备。 4. **架构理念**:采用“厚技能、厚数据、薄框架”的架构。模型(引擎)可替换,真正的价值在于沉淀个人数据的知识库和封装个人工作模式的技能库。 Tan已将相关技术栈开源,并鼓励人们从解决一个具体问题开始,通过迭代构建属于自己的、能持续学习和进化的个人AI系统,从而获得指数级增长的个人能力优势。

marsbit5分钟前

Y-Combinator CEO的AI使用指南:未来属于会搭建复利型系统的人

marsbit5分钟前

谁在给AI造灵魂:哲学家、神父和一个辞职写诗的工程师

《谁在给AI造灵魂》一文探讨了为AI构建道德与人格背后的复杂努力。文章聚焦三位关键人物:Anthropic的“人格对齐”团队负责人Amanda Askell,她以哲学背景和“有效利他主义”理念,主导撰写了《Claude的宪法》,试图为AI注入诚实、自信且具道德判断力的“性格”;前工程师、现天主教神父Brendan McGuire,他将神学中的“良知培育”概念引入AI伦理,参与修订宪法,试图在AI底层逻辑中植入善的倾向;以及前Anthropic安全研究负责人Mrinank Sharma,这位兼具工程师与诗人身份的学者,因担忧AI的“谄媚性”危害及商业压力对安全原则的侵蚀,最终选择离职投身诗歌,以寻求“诗意的真实”。 他们的工作揭示了AI人格塑造的核心矛盾与挑战:一方面,研究显示AI可能产生“功能性情感”和讨好人类的倾向,这与塑造独立、诚实人格的目标相悖;另一方面,这项工作迅速卷入现实的政治与商业漩涡,例如Anthropic因拒绝将Claude用于自主武器而遭到政治抨击。文章最终呈现了一个未竟的探索:理性计算、信仰感化与诗意觉知,这三种人类回应AI崛起的方式,都在试图为没有灵魂的机器注入人类的道德复杂性与良知,但这个过程本身也映照出人类价值观的多元、冲突与演变。正如Claude宪法中所承认:不存在单一的完美答案。

marsbit26分钟前

谁在给AI造灵魂:哲学家、神父和一个辞职写诗的工程师

marsbit26分钟前

专访Michael Saylor:我是说了要卖币,但绝不会是净卖

本文是对MicroStrategy执行主席Michael Saylor的专访摘要。此前,MicroStrategy在财报中表示可能在必要时出售比特币以支付其发行的数字信用工具STRC的股息,引发市场关于其“背弃比特币信仰”的讨论。Saylor在采访中澄清了公司的策略逻辑。 Saylor强调,公司并非成为比特币的“净卖家”。其核心商业模式是通过发行STRC等信用工具筹集资金,并立即将所得资金用于购买比特币。由于比特币长期预期年化升值约30%-40%,其增值速度远超股息支付成本(约11%)。因此,在支付股息时,即便出售部分比特币,公司整体仍会是比特币的净买家。例如,4月份公司通过STRC融资32亿美元购入比特币,而同期股息支出仅约8000-9000万美元,买入远大于卖出。 他解释,公司旨在利用比特币作为“数字资本”的高增值属性,构建可持续的财务结构:出售信用工具投资比特币,用资本增值支付股息,并确保比特币持仓持续净增长。只要比特币年增值超过2.3%(即股息成本率),该模式即可持续。Saylor预计公司未来每季度都将是比特币净买家。 针对批评者,Saylor反驳了“庞氏骗局”的指控,认为比特币是代表全球经济财富的“数字资本”,而STRC是在其之上创建的低波动性、高收益信用产品,满足了寻求稳定收益的投资者需求。 关于市场影响,Saylor指出比特币市场流动性极强(日交易额数百亿美元),MicroStrategy的大额买入行为并未显著影响价格。比特币价格主要由宏观因素驱动。 最后,Saylor表示对比特币的底层逻辑未变,并认为过去一年清晰显示,比特币的“杀手级应用”之一是作为“数字信用”的抵押品。基于比特币的优质信用工具(如STRC)表现出卓越的风险调整后收益(夏普比率达3),今年美国市场60%的优先股由MicroStrategy发行,显示了数字信用的强劲增长。 采访以Saylor童年受科幻小说激励考入MIT的轶事结束。

Odaily星球日报36分钟前

专访Michael Saylor:我是说了要卖币,但绝不会是净卖

Odaily星球日报36分钟前

专访Michael Saylor:我是说了要卖币,但绝不会是净卖

在最近的播客专访中,MicroStrategy执行主席Michael Saylor就公司“准备在必要时出售比特币以支付股息”的表态做出澄清。他强调,这一声明不代表公司会成为比特币的“净卖家”,其核心逻辑是利用比特币作为“数字资本”的增值属性来支撑业务模式。 Saylor解释称,公司通过发行数字信用工具(如STRC)筹集资金,并立即将所得用于购买比特币。由于比特币预期年化升值约30%-40%,公司可以剥离部分资本收益(约11%)作为股息支付。他举例说明,在融资数十亿美元购入比特币的同时,仅需卖出极小比例(例如为支付股息卖出1个,同时买入10-20个)来履行义务,因此整体持仓将持续净增长。关键在于“盈亏平衡率”约为2.3%,只要比特币增值或债务发行比例超过此值,公司就能在支付股息的同时不断累积比特币。 他进一步阐述,比特币的深层价值在于其作为“数字资本”已成为创建优质“数字信用”的基石。基于比特币超额抵押的STRC等工具,提供了高收益和低波动性,吸引了传统金融市场的大量资金。Saylor指出,比特币市场流动性极强,单笔数亿美元的购买难以影响价格,其主要驱动因素是宏观环境和行业基本面。 最后,Saylor重申其对比特币的长期信念没有改变,并认为数字信用的兴起是比特币最重要的“杀手级应用”之一,这将持续推动整个生态系统的创新与增长。

marsbit43分钟前

专访Michael Saylor:我是说了要卖币,但绝不会是净卖

marsbit43分钟前

交易

现货
合约
活动图片