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

marsbit發佈於 2026-03-09更新於 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.

相關問答

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.

你可能也喜歡

比特币八月行情:专家预计将测试价格区间,而非快速反转

比特币在八月可能继续承压,分析师预计市场将测试关键区间而非快速反转。七月比特币从多年低点反弹,但专家认为持续上涨条件尚不成熟,价格仍有跌至6万美元以下的风险。截至七月底,比特币交易于约6.35万美元,较2025年10月的历史高点下跌约50%。市场目前处于6万至6.5万美元的窄幅区间内。 分析师指出,高利率、持续通胀、强势美元以及石油价格等因素共同构成不利的宏观经济背景,压制了比特币价格。此外,美国国债等传统资产的高收益率吸引了部分资金,而加密货币ETF资金持续流出(上半年净流出54亿美元),显示机构需求疲软。 从历史数据看,八月通常是加密货币的弱势月份。专家认为市场可能正处于新周期开始前的最后阶段,建议投资者可考虑逐步积累仓位,但需警惕短期波动。 主要预测场景如下: - 基本情况(50%概率):在5.8万至6.8万美元区间震荡。 - 负面场景(30%概率):跌破5.8万美元,下探5万至5.5万美元。 - 正面场景(20%概率):突破6.7万美元,目标看向7.1万至7.5万美元。 关键支撑位在6万至6.1万美元附近,而稳定在6.7万美元上方可能打破下跌趋势。部分分析师认为,即便反弹至7万美元,也可能出现新一轮下跌,长期目标位指向约5.3万美元区域。多数观点认为,更显著的趋势性行情可能需等到今年第四季度。 投资者在八月需密切关注利率、通胀数据、ETF资金流、市场风险偏好以及主要参与者的动向,这个月可能更多是对耐心的考验,而非实现重大突破的时机。

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

比特币八月行情:专家预计将测试价格区间,而非快速反转

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

Coldcard硬件钱包被黑:黑客在25分钟内转走594枚比特币

硬件钱包Coldcard遭黑客攻击:25分钟内损失594枚比特币 硬件钱包长期以来被认为是存储数字货币最安全的方式,但Coinkite公司设备近期发生的事件迫使许多人重新审视这一观点。2026年7月30日,攻击者在短短25分钟内从500个地址转走了594.5枚比特币(约合4000万美元)。 问题的根源在于一个潜伏了五年的软件代码错误。Coldcard本应通过安全芯片生成真随机数来创建种子短语,但由于一个宏定义中的笔误,Coinkite的开发者早在2021年3月就意外禁用了此功能。这导致设备转而基于可预测的数据(如处理器序列号和内部系统时钟)生成密钥,使得生成的种子短语看似安全,实则因生成过程可预测而极易被破解。对于Mk2和Mk3型号,密钥搜索空间骤降至约40位,而更新的Mk4、Mk5和Q型号的最终熵值也仅为约72位,远低于所需的128位。 攻击者无需物理接触设备或进行网络钓鱼。他们仅利用了有缺陷的生成器参数,在离线状态下进行大规模枚举,生成了数百万可能的种子短语,并通过公开账本找到有余额的地址,自行签署了转账交易。 Coinkite最初声称新版本设备不受影响,但后续分析迫使公司承认所有运行受影响固件的设备均存在风险。公司负责人Rodolphe Novak已公开道歉,但排除了对受损用户进行经济补偿的可能性。 对于已创建种子短语的用户,仅更新固件无法消除风险。必须将设备更新至安全版本固件,在更新后的设备上生成全新的种子短语,并将所有资金完全转移到由此新种子短语生成的新地址。使用BIP-39标准的密码短语可降低风险,但不能替代密钥迁移。公司的其他产品如TAPSIGNER等未受此次事件影响。 此事件表明,即使是专用硬件也需要对代码进行持续独立的审计,尤其是在加密功能方面。从机器分析角度看,这与过去OpenSSL等随机数生成器缺陷长期未被发现的情况类似。开源代码理论上可通过独立审计和自动化工具加速发现此类错误,但此次漏洞潜伏五年表明理论与实践仍有差距。

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

Coldcard硬件钱包被黑:黑客在25分钟内转走594枚比特币

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片