Fedoras

@lockintrade @DegenerateNews @MagicEden it was 2 months notice still not perfect but not as bad

@DegenerateNews @MagicEden wallet deprecation with 24hr notice - curious how many traders are still holding positions they can't access if their device fails tomorrow

NEW: @MagicEden WALLET TO GO INTO A DEPRECATED EXPORT ONLY MODE AND BE REMOVED FROM APP STORES TOMORROW - "IF YOU LOSE ACCESS TO YOUR DEVICE OR DOWNLOADED VERSION OF THE APP, THIS MEANS YOU WILL ALSO LOSE ACCESS TO ANY WALLETS"

@datadashboards yeah, up to 7% on crypto markets x.com/Fedoras_/statu…

Seems like they silently changed the formula in the docs. Went from: fee = C × p × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent to: fee = C × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent

@TheSpeculator0 comms 101 now fees are much more like on Kalshi x.com/fedoras_/statu…

Polymarket enabled fees today for more markets and it's yet again another complete shitshow: previously it was already live on crypto markets with the following formula: fee per contract = p × feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent This means that the fee is a parabola around 50c in terms of how much you pay as % of your premium. somewhat reasonable. Today, they, without telling anyone, removed the first p term in the formula, so it just becomes: fee per contract = feeRate × (p × (1 - p))^exponent Now fee in dollars is a parabola, but fee as a % of premium has an extreme inverse relationship to price. If you spend 100 dollars on a contract with a 0.1c price, you will pay 30 dollars in fees in e.g. the economics category. Insane tax on small bets and this is going to reduce turnover a lot of people who want to get out of near 1/0 positions (the same is true of markets trading at e.g. 99.9 from an EV perspective)

@Frosen fees onchain match new docs

BREAKING: New fees on Polymarket appear to be as high as 94.8%

@TheNotoriousSKi they just updated docs with new formula fees are not what was originally announced :/ x.com/fedoras_/statu…

Polymarket have fucked up their new fee implementation & are overcharging users up to 1000x Example: $1 buy in a crypto market priced @ 1c $1 bet @ 0.01 gets you only 92.9 shares, a 7.1 share fee Docs say effective fee rate should be 0.07% 100x odds turns into 92.9x post fees

@Autonomous_Chad @Nik_Poly @mustafap0ly they just updated the formula (in the docs; and well on-chain it was like new whole day) 7% is at 1 cent on crypto markets x.com/Fedoras_/statu…

@Nik_Poly @mustafap0ly are you sure of that ? at what price do you get 7% fee ? The new fees should top out at 1.8%

What the hell did Polymarket just do? Fees are now up to 7% for certain prices. Senior intern @mustafap0ly seems to be confirming that the change is intended.

@Nik_Poly ended up being much more like kalshi (crypto/finance are even more expensive) x.com/Fedoras_/statu…

30% fees💀💀

the difference is in the formula originally announced was different (extra * Price factor in it) now formulas are pretty much the same with kalshi (but polymarket has differenet exponent)

you could calculate fees per category in my dashboard, i synced it already: poly-fees.fedoras.dev

so fees which @Polymarket actually deployed are different from what was originally announced its already reflected in the docs (i think updated few minutes ago), so prolly confirmed fees are more like on kalshi now:

new formula is C * feeRate * (p * (1-p))^exp it was: C * p * feeRate * (p * (1-p))^exp note this p in original formula basically removing it means at 50 cents u dont have 0.5 modifier to fee so its x2 from original announced fee

polymarket deployed different fees than announced, huh people were charged more than expected and so they just updated docs few minutes ago fees went up from what was announced

@amoginfinity @TheGreekTrader yeah exactly well, we’ll see what happens maybe POLY based solution etc. what I like about Uma is that it’s a consensus at the end of the day, not some specific party decision

@Fedoras_ @TheGreekTrader ye srry i overlooked ur main point and that's true for the sec question, there's no alternative as of now, it's literally a paradox, all things big must start small, but you can't use small, so the small has to appraise itself until others think it's "big"

Sadly, a few influential Polymarket/UMA voters can basically decide the outcome of markets. Here's what just happened: There's a market on whether Trump talked with President Xi in March. Trump and Karoline Leavitt said they did, but China never confirmed it. And almost always (if not always), these kinds of calls are publicly announced by China, so that created a lot of doubt. That's why the odds dropped to around 17%. But today, literally nothing changed. No new evidence, no confirmation, nothing. The only thing that changed is that an influential UMA voter decided to vote that they talked. And just from that, the odds jumped from 17% to 95%. That's kind of insane. At this point, markets aren't resolving based on clear evidence, but based on what a few people like "JessicaOnlyChild" or "UMA rocks" think. I really hope Polymarket clarifies every market, until the new oracle system is live. It shouldn't be possible for a handful of non-Polymarket people to have that much influence over outcomes.

@amoginfinity @TheGreekTrader my main point is that if rules were more specific there would be no argument but I get what u mean what are the alternatives with big enough ecosystem? or perhaps other models

@Fedoras_ @TheGreekTrader the reason why its an uma issue is cuz uma's whole premise is that the ecosystem is large enough that the "truth" will always win out, but if the ecosystem is too small, events like this will keep happening over and over until polymarket finds a less manipulable consensus model

@ramashass yes bro no fees just imagine free!!

hi I'm new to the memecoiner space, is it true that Monday will be good day to start?

@heettike which sounds correct, but statistically completely incorrect great app tho thanks for sharing

tldr there are contracts on polymarket that are near certain (90% probability). you still arent sure, there are edge cases when your luck is dumb but vvv often you can make a 10% gain by buying into a consensus opinion now an agent will just auto trade these markets fir you give it $100 with a $10 maximum for each trade @freemoneylfg has ~10-15 events that are resolving in 24 hours make 5-7% everyday some rlly high probability events are already trading at 97-98, so you’re only making a couple bps there i am excited for auto pilot

@hrithikk @P2Pdotme nvm lol it’s been for a while x.com/ashbhintade/st…

@Fedoras_ @P2Pdotme whatever

if you’re a vc fund, a whale, or a reputable person and you invest in @P2Pdotme you’re normalising insults toward users and investors and it will come back to you just my 2 cents

@EdgedUpApp @thenarrator any good articles about that?

@thenarrator This is why model-based pricing matters. When insiders move the market, the math still tells the truth.

this is simple: when you trade on an outcome you have direct influence over, you've crossed from prediction into manipulation the signal this sends to every project in crypto: if you're trading your own prediction markets, stop.

@lisabeyy @P2Pdotme @nic_carter link?

@P2Pdotme This reminded me of @nic_carter article about prediction markets — 🥲

A note on the Polymarket positions you've seen on-chain - the account named "P2P Team" is ours. We wanted to come out honestly. The capital came from our foundation account and all proceeds return to it. Here's the full picture. 10 days before our raise went live, we placed bets that we'd hit our $6M+ target. At that point we had one oral commitment from Multicoin ($3M) - no signed term sheets, no guaranteed allocations, nothing binding. We were betting on ourselves. We'd told the market we were raising over $6M. We believed we could. That bet was our way of backing our word with our own money at a moment when the outcome was genuinely uncertain. Over the following 10 days we made our case, secured commitments, and the raise closed at $5.2M - entirely from outside investors we don't control. We understand why this raises questions. Trading on an outcome you can influence erodes trust. We don't believe we were trading on a done deal, but we recognize reasonable people can see it differently. We named the account "P2P Team" deliberately - to give a marketing signal of our presence to the community and reflect our intent to be transparent. But intent isn't the same as action. Not disclosing at the time was a mistake we own. We took time to study the legal implications before speaking, which is why we stayed silent until now with a "No Comments" stance! - that too is a fair criticism. All proceeds go back into our futarchy-governed MetaDAO treasury. We will be liquidating all positions in the next few hours and are putting together a formal company policy on prediction market trading going forward. One thing we want to be unambiguous about: MetaDAO (@MetaDAOProject ) had zero knowledge of or involvement in these bets. We're genuinely excited to join this community and wanted to start on the right note - which means being straight with you about this.