Telluxion

@DidiTrading @inno_ox Satoshi has to move soon before quantic. I highly doubt he’s alive though

@inno_ox if it moves, everyone in crypto is rekt

Day 500: Lots of great stablecoins farms available on Polymarket. Take for example “Will Satoshi move any Bitcoin in 2026?” which is currently trading at 90c. With ~242 days left in 2026, that’s ~17.3% APY. Most stablecoin farms offer around 5–8% APY, so this is way better and you're farming $POLY airdrop on top.

@SuperShyGuy0 @frogdoteth @NZ377_ @getliquidalpha It’s given to anybody with a 20$ Claude subscription, but eh guys they don’t have to Right

@syrupfund @frogdoteth @NZ377_ @getliquidalpha Lmao you clown. They don't have to. That's what HIP-4 is for. People build on top of it. Not Hyperliquid builds everything. I'll come back to this to shit on you.

If this is the UI Polymarket is competing against, I doubt there’s any real competition lol.

@frogdoteth @NZ377_ @getliquidalpha Yet they didn’t

@NZ377_ @getliquidalpha Nigga any retard with a 20 dollar subscription to claude can fix that, the ui isnt whats important

@DeverNoom @MonteCarloSpam Yes ofc I don’t deny that. But variance is way higher for 10 try than 1000 try. (Your results will be way more spread around the result you’ll often get 3/10, 7/10 while for 1000 try you’ll get 480/1000 -> 4,8/10) variance is lower even if you’re 20 heads away instead of 3

@syrupfund @MonteCarloSpam No lol, do you think it's harder to get 1 head out of 2 flips ? You’re confusing it with the long run theorem But the question is about getting exactly 50% heads. That probability actually goes down as n gets larger. So exactly 5/10 is way more likely than exactly 500/1000.

Easy stats question that a smart friend got wrong: The chance of getting 5 heads from 10 coinflips is ..... than getting 500 heads from 1000 coinflips?

@DeverNoom @MonteCarloSpam Variance decrease with the number of iteration so you have more variance with less flips.

@MonteCarloSpam If it's "exactly", then without using binomial it's intuitively higher cauz you have less variance with less flips

@Sam_____85 @Eltonma Only 7% -> 70000$ Went to account which didn’t took any risks. Like 7% for 0% of the shares isn’t enormous

@Eltonma Less than 7% of rewards went to accounts with 0 volume so I don't think ghost fillers are getting that much

Just now I was debating whether to bond one market then I decide to pull the trigger to clear the book for 50k. I got filled 0 lol. Then I noticed my rewards % on that market changed from 5% to 92%. This is just sad 😢 I really hope that the Monday update poly promised can solve the issue otherwise it seems more and more idiotic to farm as you will get no rewards but real fills only. While cheaters got all rewards and no fills. @shayne_coplan

@polymarket_O3O Fees are too high.

As a dedicated partner and active trader on Polymarket, I have high regard for the platform's growth. However, I would like to raise a constructive concern regarding the current deductive fee structure. Currently, fees are deducted directly from the acquired shares rather than applied as an external surcharge. This model, where a $150 investment at 15¢ yields a potential $966 instead of the expected $1000, tends to amplify the user's perception of loss. Furthermore, the lack of fee transparency in the transaction history could be interpreted as a Dark Pattern, hindering a trader's ability to accurately audit their PnL. To foster long-term trust within the community, I strongly recommend enhancing fee observability—ensuring every cent paid is clearly logged and reflected in our performance charts. Transparency is, after all, the cornerstone of decentralized prediction markets.

@GenaTheCroco @Domahhhh You’re not fooling anyone Gena. I love you but I’m surprised you were not banned earlier tbh.

Agree in everything but one thing, getting banned from Polymarket Discord is not that difficult. I was banned for posting too many bugs and all my attempts to get access back have been denied. Even now that I lead a prediction market's community (Market wolves 🐺 discord.gg/AUDW35pVd) I'm still barred.

Hopefully Polymarket is on precipice of replacing UMA, because the "oracle" that underpins the site is now a disinformation engine that has been taken over by rogue traders. (If you find the below post confusing, byzantine, stupid, or anything else, first of all that's probably partly my fault, and secondly that's also exactly what I am trying to convey: the resolution of markets is now a dizzying, corrupt mess.) -- The largest and most influential voter in the "oracle" that governs Polymarket's prediction market is no longer anyone with Risk Labs (UMA was created by a legit crypto company, but they've stopped updating UMA and largely abandoned it). It is now UMA Rocks, a collection of Polymarket traders. UMA Rocks decisions are made by various unqualified bozos, who have real-money positions in the markets they're voting to resolve, and thus have a strong incentives in resolving markets to something that personally benefits them. -- Which brings us to the market in question: corny loser Clavicular claimed/joked that he got a girl pregnant, as he has done in the past. He said she was pregnant within 10 days of meeting him. He offered no proof, and talks about it very vaguely, sometimes implying that it is true, sometimes implying that it is a joke. Polymarket has a relationship with Clavicular, and had a market up on a pregnancy announcement (we'll set aside whether Clavicular himself traded on this, I have no idea. He was aware of the market). Obviously a streamer is not inherently credible when his brand is making silly viral clips, and that is doubly true when the streamer is making vague comments. The rules correctly require a credible claim. It shouldn't expire yes until we get something...anything...that is credible. Common sense. Scrolling through the arguments, pretty much every single long-time user of Polymarket thinks it shouldn't count (even ironically including some yes holders). And as anyone who has tried to get pregnant with a partner will realize, his joke doesn't even make sense: it is next-to-impossible to go from sex to a positive pregnancy test within 10 days. But it IS going to expire to yes in a few hours for one reason: UMA Rocks has hijacked the voting process. A user named Scout (who was, at the time, one of the biggest yes holder and also a key UMA Rocks member) posted that it should be Yes because Clavicular is unimpeachable as a source on himself. Note here that Scout is already banned from Polymarket's discord server (very hard to do lol) for engaging in borderline criminal activity, before any of these events happened. Scout then propelled UMA Rocks to officially side with Yes. The second largest voter, a Risk Labs employee, then switched his vote after UMA Rocks voted (this was done out of self preservation, because if you vote on the losing side in UMA, you lose money). The vote was somewhat close in the first round, with "Yes" edging out "Too Early to Expire" in raw token votes (the vast majority of tokenholders voted "Too Early", but UMA Rocks led the small number of whales who actually decide the outcomes to voting "Yes"). Because of the way that UMA works -- it incentivizes the most popular answer rather than the truthful answer -- anything that is leading in a previous round is extremely likely to win. And so now the vote is overwhelmingly projected to go Yes. Clav's "announcement" was a few days ago, and we now know it is very unlikely that anyone is pregnant/girl was already kicked out of his house allegedly, and that it was extremely likely a viral joke from a streamer in need of positive PR...but the wheels are in motion and nobody is trying to stop it. -- Post-script: (1) Scout was kicked out of UMA Rocks a few hours ago for this scheme. (2) UMA Rocks has attempted to wield its influence in various markets since it became the largest holder of UMA a few weeks ago, often posting to flip the odds. But it also often ultimately fails, because Polymarket intercedes and clarifies against them. (3) Polymarket has strangely not clarified or commented on this one, despite it receiving a lot of attention. Which brings me to my final point. It's now been a year since the minerals market heist, where users lost millions of dollars to a fraudulent UMA scheme that took place over a weekend. We were assured that things would change. Unfortunately nothing has changed, and it has gotten far, far, far worse. UMA is far more vulnerable than it was a year ago, and the inmates are starting to take the asylum.

@0xinternetchild @BrokieTrades Except if Pedro knows/is uma whale. UMA whale vote in favor of Pedro. If I was an UMA whale right now I would consider doing this (only way to dump your bag with a profit) it’s 200% worth it if you think Polymarket will ditch you when they’ll launch their token

@BrokieTrades Damn even if he bought them at 0.1c that's still $50k on a lost cause

Pedro now has 53 million shares. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a record on Polymarket.

@vertex_L Don’t be cocky, in 2 years everyone will use Blender via Claude.

You guys have to use AI to press Ctrl+L and link materials?

@CarOnPolymarket Based

Polymarket completed a successful migration of their entire website architecture in just one hour, without any issues, while hundreds of millions of dollars were on the platform. We now have: - Lower gas costs - A simplified order structure - $pUSD These upgrades will allow Polymarket to scale the platform and ship new features faster. All while distributing $2,000,000 in liquidity rewards to the community. Huge shoutout to the team.

@terrytakes101 Tools not available on your github? 🥲

Legit..decided to split into 2 halves and you can see he has been relatively quiet for the past 2 months or so. Haha

@AZKCrypto Ok mais si tu essaies d’évaluer par rapport au launch des autres tokens je te rappel que Starknet avait une fdv de 32Milliards. Il faut etre terre a terre

@syrupfund Le token n'est pas lancé, Arbitrum n'a pas lancé son token avec le mainnet non plus. Faut comparer avec les tokens à leur launch, c'est débile sinon. Depuis le temps ils se sont fait rouler dessus.

Comparer la FDV de projets lancés depuis des mois voire des années, qui ont tous plus ou moins fail avec la potentielle FDV d'un projet pas sorti. Niveau 0.

@DidiTrading @FinancierLord Thx good to know

@syrupfund @FinancierLord Only 5k fluffles exist rn so its 2.5%

Day 495: MegaETH launching in 3 days. If MegaETH were to match Monad’s market cap, it would trade around a $5.3B FDV. I’ve closed all my MegaETH positions on Polymarket. I think the market is massively undervaluing it right now especially with only 6.8% supply circulating at TGE. Glad I managed to make 24K on this trade. Looking forward to Thursday, pretty convinced we could see a similar price action to Monad.

@FinancierLord @DidiTrading Official MegaEth website says otherwise

@syrupfund @DidiTrading No, not true. Fluffle is 2.5%. Originally was 5% but they had a public sale instead. Public sale is not 100% unlocked, most is locked for a year.

@FinancierLord @DidiTrading Fluffle is 50%*5% and public sale is 100%*5%

@DidiTrading I see 20%*5% for echo, 50%*2.5% for fluffier, 35%*5% for public sale for a total of 4%, what have I missed?

@penguin_pmkt What would they cave under?

people who think that iran will cave under sanctions (or a blockade) gravely misunderstand not just how nations handle coercion, but how all humans respond to coercion

@AVaderDegen @megaeth @Polymarket Take a look at Hyperliquid premarket

Can anyone show me these clowns who bet on $1.5B-$2B FDV for @megaeth !? Arbitrum - $1.25B Starknet - $454M ZKsync - $341M Linea - $237M Megaeth - $2B🤣 Whoo they are!????? @Polymarket

@TaikiMaeda2 comment ?