The post Polymarket double-counts trading figures, Paradigm reveals appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Paradigm researchers, led by Storm Slivkoff, have discovered that Polymarket’s trading volume figures, not related to wash trading, have been double-counted on almost every major dashboard. Slivkoff, who is a research partner at Paradigm, said this is because Polymarket’s on-chain data contains redundant blockchain events. Slivkoff claimed that an analysis of Polymarket’s market structure, smart contracts, and event data revealed that the usual approach of summing the platform’s OrderFilled events is the primary reason behind the double-counting. The approach double-counts cash flow (in USD) and the number of traded contracts.   For instance, Slivkoff discovered that a simple YES/NO token sale of $4.13 is recorded as volume worth $8.26 because separate OrderFilled events represent the taker side and the maker side of the trade. The researcher emphasizes that volume on such prediction markets should be measured using either the taker side or the maker side, not both. Slivkoff dissects Polymarket’s trade anatomy The Paradigm research partner began by describing the on-chain data associated with each trade on the Polymarket platform. He pointed out that all the platform’s transactions follow a rigid template, which includes at most one group of matched Polymarket orders per Polygon transaction.  Slivkoff further explained that each set of matched orders has at least one maker and precisely one taker. He also noted that trade transactions are submitted by approximately 50 EOAs affiliated with Polymarket, and that each transaction on the platform follows the same event sequence. “Polymarket’s on-chain data is quite complex, and this has led to widespread adoption of flawed accounting methods.”  –Storm Slivkoff, Research Partner at Paradigm  According to Slivkoff, the accounting bug inflates both commonly used types of volume metrics for cash flow volume and notional volume, as well as the prediction market. He noted that the platform’s data has been confusing for crypto… The post Polymarket double-counts trading figures, Paradigm reveals appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Paradigm researchers, led by Storm Slivkoff, have discovered that Polymarket’s trading volume figures, not related to wash trading, have been double-counted on almost every major dashboard. Slivkoff, who is a research partner at Paradigm, said this is because Polymarket’s on-chain data contains redundant blockchain events. Slivkoff claimed that an analysis of Polymarket’s market structure, smart contracts, and event data revealed that the usual approach of summing the platform’s OrderFilled events is the primary reason behind the double-counting. The approach double-counts cash flow (in USD) and the number of traded contracts.   For instance, Slivkoff discovered that a simple YES/NO token sale of $4.13 is recorded as volume worth $8.26 because separate OrderFilled events represent the taker side and the maker side of the trade. The researcher emphasizes that volume on such prediction markets should be measured using either the taker side or the maker side, not both. Slivkoff dissects Polymarket’s trade anatomy The Paradigm research partner began by describing the on-chain data associated with each trade on the Polymarket platform. He pointed out that all the platform’s transactions follow a rigid template, which includes at most one group of matched Polymarket orders per Polygon transaction.  Slivkoff further explained that each set of matched orders has at least one maker and precisely one taker. He also noted that trade transactions are submitted by approximately 50 EOAs affiliated with Polymarket, and that each transaction on the platform follows the same event sequence. “Polymarket’s on-chain data is quite complex, and this has led to widespread adoption of flawed accounting methods.”  –Storm Slivkoff, Research Partner at Paradigm  According to Slivkoff, the accounting bug inflates both commonly used types of volume metrics for cash flow volume and notional volume, as well as the prediction market. He noted that the platform’s data has been confusing for crypto…

Polymarket double-counts trading figures, Paradigm reveals

2025/12/09 16:12

Paradigm researchers, led by Storm Slivkoff, have discovered that Polymarket’s trading volume figures, not related to wash trading, have been double-counted on almost every major dashboard. Slivkoff, who is a research partner at Paradigm, said this is because Polymarket’s on-chain data contains redundant blockchain events.

Slivkoff claimed that an analysis of Polymarket’s market structure, smart contracts, and event data revealed that the usual approach of summing the platform’s OrderFilled events is the primary reason behind the double-counting. The approach double-counts cash flow (in USD) and the number of traded contracts.  

For instance, Slivkoff discovered that a simple YES/NO token sale of $4.13 is recorded as volume worth $8.26 because separate OrderFilled events represent the taker side and the maker side of the trade. The researcher emphasizes that volume on such prediction markets should be measured using either the taker side or the maker side, not both.

Slivkoff dissects Polymarket’s trade anatomy

The Paradigm research partner began by describing the on-chain data associated with each trade on the Polymarket platform. He pointed out that all the platform’s transactions follow a rigid template, which includes at most one group of matched Polymarket orders per Polygon transaction. 

Slivkoff further explained that each set of matched orders has at least one maker and precisely one taker. He also noted that trade transactions are submitted by approximately 50 EOAs affiliated with Polymarket, and that each transaction on the platform follows the same event sequence.

According to Slivkoff, the accounting bug inflates both commonly used types of volume metrics for cash flow volume and notional volume, as well as the prediction market. He noted that the platform’s data has been confusing for crypto data analysts who find it difficult to untangle the many interacting layers using a block explorer. 

Slivkoff said this difficulty arises because trades on the platform can be either simple swaps or merges and splits, where both parties exchange opposing positions for cash. He also stated that the smart contracts present redundant events for tracking, which standard blockchain explorers often fail to distinguish clearly.   

Paradigm builds a simulator to illustrate trading volume behavior

Spreadsheet of the Polymarket volume simulator. Source: Paradigm.

Paradigm revealed that its team has built a simulator to illustrate how different trading metrics behave under at least eight trading types. The simulator calculates maker/taker balance changes, open interest changes, and various volume metrics for each trade type. 

Slivkoff further disclosed that the YES price and the number of traded contracts are the only two inputs required for the simulation. He also suggested that crypto data analysts can make copies of the spreadsheet and change the parameters to perform their own simulations. 

However, Slivkoff pointed out that analysts using this simulator should take note of a few invariants. He clarified that for each trade type, the maker and taker always take opposite positions. One is a long YES resolution, and the other is a short YES resolution. 

Slivkoff also noted that the maker and taker YES and NO deltas always have similar absolute values. However, he added that this is different from their USDC deltas, which can have differing absolute values.

The researcher also emphasized that split trades always increase open interest, while merge trades always decrease open interest. However, swap trades always leave open interest unchanged. 

Slivkoff noted that calculating both notional volume and cash flow volume for swap trades is straightforward. He also observed that Polymarket’s OrderFilled sum presented a value that is twice the correct figure for both of these metrics. However, he emphasized that calculating these metrics for merge trades and split trades is more complex than for a conventional swap.

If you’re reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Source: https://www.cryptopolitan.com/polymarket-double-counts-figures/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

‘Already seen the low?’ – Inside Cathie Wood’s bet on a new Bitcoin cycle

‘Already seen the low?’ – Inside Cathie Wood’s bet on a new Bitcoin cycle

The post ‘Already seen the low?’ – Inside Cathie Wood’s bet on a new Bitcoin cycle appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin has rarely looked more fragile, and many analysts are already referring to this as the worst fourth quarter on record, marked by a massive leverage wipeout and a steep drop from its all-time highs. For over a decade, Bitcoin [BTC] has followed a harsh, predictable pattern: a Halving event, a commendable rally to new highs, and then a brutal 75–90% crash that resets the entire market. This cycle shaped the crypto world and created the “crypto winter” mentality that traders have come to expect. Cathie Wood challenges the four-year cycle But according to Cathie Wood, CEO and CIO of ARK Invest, those old rules no longer apply. Speaking with Fox Business, Wood made a profound declaration: institutional adoption is actively “disrupting” the traditional Bitcoin cycle. Wood noted that growing participation in U.S. Spot Bitcoin ETFs had started to change how BTC absorbed volatility. She pointed to a steady decline in its two-year volatility trend over the past five years, adding fuel to the idea of a maturing asset. Why Bitcoin’s old pattern may be fading Wood’s view challenges over a decade of beliefs built around Bitcoin’s strict, predictable four-year cycle. The evidence for this cycle is compelling.  For instance, the 2012 Halving saw Bitcoin surge from under $10 to a peak of roughly $1,100; the 2016 Halving fueled a climb from $400 to nearly $20,000; and the 2020 Halving propelled the asset from $8,500 to a record high of around $69,000. Each of these explosive rallies was followed by a painful, defining drawdown of 70% to 85%, resetting the stage for the next run. This predictable pattern, last triggered by the 20th April 2024, Halving, has historically been the sole script for investors. Yet, this time, the narrative feels disjointed and disruptive. What is Wood so concerned about? Wood…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/11 19:15
The Critical Security Play You Can’t Miss in the AI Era

The Critical Security Play You Can’t Miss in the AI Era

The post The Critical Security Play You Can’t Miss in the AI Era appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The Watershed Moment That Changed Blockchain Security Forever Singapore – Blockman PR – December 2025 marked a turning point. Anthropic’s research team published findings that sent shockwaves through crypto: AI systems could successfully exploit smart contract vulnerabilities with 55.88% accuracy, simulating $4.6 million in potential theft from real-world contracts. The implications were existential. If AI could systematically identify and exploit vulnerabilities at scale, the entire blockchain ecosystem—processing over $1 trillion in transactions annually—faced an unprecedented threat. Traditional security tools couldn’t keep pace. Human auditors, already stretched thin reviewing less than 20% of deployed contracts, had no chance against autonomous AI attackers. But here’s what most people missed: Anthropic’s breakthrough wasn’t just validation of the threat. It was validation of the solution space. And one company had already been building that solution for six months—and winning. The Defense Was Already Operational While Anthropic demonstrated AI could break smart contracts in simulation, AgentLISA had been defending them in production. By the time Anthropic’s paper dropped, AgentLISA’s multi-agent system had detected over $7.3 million in actual vulnerabilities across real protocols managing billions in assets. The asymmetry is critical: Anthropic proved the threat is real and AI-powered. AgentLISA proved the defense is real, AI-powered, and already operational at scale. This matters because Anthropic’s research exposed something fundamental: the AI security race will be won by whoever controls the training data. And AgentLISA just lapped the entire field. LISA-Bench: The Data Moat Nobody Saw Coming https://github.com/agentlisa/bench Anthropic’s team used SCONE-bench—a dataset of 413 vulnerable smart contracts—to train their attack models. Solid methodology, respectable work. But fundamentally constrained by data scarcity. AgentLISA’s response was devastating: LISA-Bench, containing 23,959 professionally verified vulnerability records spanning 2016-2024—the largest curated smart contract vulnerability dataset ever assembled. It’s not just 60 times larger than SCONE-bench. It includes 10,185 code-complete vulnerability cases…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/11 19:01