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

意大利央行未发现稳定币在汇款中存在系统性优势

意大利银行的一项研究显示,稳定币在跨境汇款中并未展现出持续的成本与速度优势。其潜在优势被法币出入金手续费以及本地支付基础设施的处理流程所抵消。 研究比较了通过200 USDC在意大利与巴西、阿根廷、日本、阿联酋和南非等10条双向通道进行汇款的成本与结算时间,并与标准汇款服务进行对比。 结果显示,稳定币转账的总成本在0.3%到近9%之间波动,具体取决于汇款方向。在具备即时支付系统的通道中,结算可在20分钟内完成;若缺乏此类基础设施,则需一至两个工作日。 主要成本和延迟源于货币兑换以及当地基础设施的质量。区块链网络手续费并非主要因素。 尽管在大多数研究通道中,稳定币成本低于世界银行统计的全球平均汇款成本(6.65%),但与传统汇款服务商Wise相比,仅在七条可比通道中的三条具备成本优势。 研究者认为,若稳定币能直接用于商品服务消费而无需兑换成当地货币,其优势将更为明显。同时指出,禁令性监管无法消除市场对稳定币的需求,而过严的规则只会增加零售用户的使用难度。 此外,报告提及,稳定币总市值在7月已从5月峰值下跌超100亿美元,至约3100亿美元,创下自2022年5月Terra崩溃以来的最大月度跌幅。

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

意大利央行未发现稳定币在汇款中存在系统性优势

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

比特币热潮正酣:塞勒尔新声明引发关于购买的猜测

纳斯达克上市公司MicroStrategy(代码:MSTR)的执行董事长迈克尔·塞勒于8月2日发布信息“Bitcoin Drive engaged”(比特币驱动已启动),再次引发市场对于该公司将在周一宣布新一轮比特币购买的猜测。其周日的帖子附带了该公司惯用的购买追踪图表,这符合塞勒通常在每周财报发布前暗示其金库变动的做法。 塞勒的附图报告显示,MicroStrategy的比特币储备为843,775枚BTC,市值约532.5亿美元。平均购买成本为每枚75,653美元,未实现亏损为105.8亿美元(-16.58%)。截至8月2日,累计进行了113次购买操作。 此前在7月27日,类似的周日信号曾预告了公司的公告,当时塞勒发文称“我们还需要一种颜色”,随后MicroStrategy披露了其更大的现金储备。这种时间上的巧合强化了市场对周一将发布新金库状况公告的预期。 然而,该公司实时账本显示,在最近两次共计出售3,588枚BTC(包括1,363枚和2,225枚)后,其比特币储备已从847,363枚降至843,775枚。根据提交给美国证券交易委员会(SEC)的文件,这些出售是为了资助优先股支付并补充美元储备。最近的报告还显示,在截至7月26日的一周内,MicroStrategy没有购买任何比特币,同时将其美元储备增加至约37.5亿美元,这使其优先股股息和债务利息的预计覆盖期限延长至约2.1年。 财务风险依然高企,该公司报告2026年第二季度运营亏损83.3亿美元,与上年同期140.3亿美元的运营利润形成急剧逆转。这些业绩包含了公司数字资产方面83.2亿美元的未实现亏损,而2025年第二季度为未实现利润140.5亿美元。 管理层还可能通过额外出售比特币获得高达12.5亿美元,以补充用于支付优先股股息和债务利息的美元储备。因此,预计周一的披露将揭示“Bitcoin Drive”信息是否标志着资产积累的恢复,因为MicroStrategy需要在平衡其843,775枚BTC自有储备与不断增长的现金负债和积极的资本管理之间做出抉择。

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

比特币热潮正酣:塞勒尔新声明引发关于购买的猜测

cryptonews.ru1 小時前

交易

現貨
活动图片