whanod

@alpeh_v I had to spend a month isolated to get back to my neutral state. Idk maybe i’m too sensitive.

i illegally immigrated to Malaysia for the network school and all i got out of it was chronic mold poisoning ama

@Autonomous_Chad i don't think there's a reason for anyone to write this stuff without extra incentives like even if they don't have enough information they clearly should know that all of this exists elsewhere with much greater magnitude

Another slop hit piece against Prediction Markets. Straight into the trash. Mainstream journalists just can't understand that prediction markets are NOT SportsBooks 1) "Polymarket and Kalshi are setting odds as to capture insider informations" I don't know what this is supposed to mean in the best of case. But Polymarket is not setting any odds anyway, the market does. They have no control over that. 2) "Prediction markets could incur financial losses if they let insiders win" Prediction markets do not bet against their users. This is what SportsBooks do. Prediction markets are a neutral platforms where users bet against other users. They do not care who loses or win a bet. 3) "Prediction markets give opportunities for world leaders to insider trade" True but they didn't wait on Prediction Markets and they are not even good for that. Every time Trump announced a ceasefire with Iran, we saw Billion dollars oil future trades hit the market a few minute before, making hundred of millions in profit. Try to place a billion dollar order on Geopolitical prediction markets with a few hundred thousands of liquidity. For some reason Mainstream media seems to absolutely hate prediction markets and churn out these trash hit pieces on the regular. I would advise @polymarket to put a few dollars from their marketing budget into educating the wider public. Because this may seem very retarded to us, but so are the people reading it, and they vote.

This is why RFQ combo pricing can look broken from the outside. A maker wins the trade exactly when they were aggressive enough to beat everyone else, which is also the moment they should be most paranoid that they underpriced the package. So the quote starts carrying a cushion. More desks, more disagreement, more uncertainty around the legs, bigger cushion. That’s how you end up with combo prices that feel weird if you read them as pure probabilities. They are probability + inventory risk + winner’s curse + the cost of being the maker dumb enough to win.

@therealchaseeb That and also deep familiarity with emotional spectrum

I would be financially retarded without my years in crypto. It taught be everything I know about finance. Before that I thought the best way to make it was work hard and save your money.

@itsbiccs Honestly for me the problem is the evm and its ecosystem I don’t wanna deal with that. I just don’t like it as much anymore.

These past weeks I've been getting job offers to work on companies in the Ethereum ecosystem LOL I will never work for that boomer chain 😭

@luishXYZ Yeah, there’s a bunch of stuff they could try to maybe monetize this or expose it selectively but I’m not sure a player as big as them would be willing to try that path.

@whanodd true. others (newsletters, media companies) might have a better monetization angle on top of this than the platforms itself

Interesting observation: While Kalshi is winning in the US and has higher overall volumes, Polymarket’s website has a ton more visits. Most of these are NOT traders. It’s people checking the odds for an event they care about. Polymarket is actually a news website.

@JamesChristoph in their imaginary world they are still in a position to be bullying someone.

Only the ethereum foundation dumps on someone building on their own chain. Morons.

@owocki the current state of ethereum makes people want to discuss these issues but i don't think reducing issuance is gonna change anything.

for ~2 years there's been a telegram group where ethereum's monetary policy gets debated. justin drake started it march 2025, the day after solana's issuance cut failed a vote. 2,715 messages later, three camps that formed in the first 48 hours haven't moved: 1. reduce issuance (anders' 0.5% max-issuance curve, because the network overpays for security and staking slowly eating raw eth is a real risk). 2. don't you dare (hanniabu's math: cut it and coinbase survives on loss-leader economics while the solo staker dies). 3. it's not urgent (sassal: the merge already cut issuance 90% and eth/btc still bled). meanwhile staking has crossed 1/3 of all eth and keeps grinding up ~50k/day. but the data shows it flowing to coinbase, binance, kraken, and treasury companies. everyone agrees the current curve was suboptimal. nobody agrees it's urgent, safe to change, or fixable without breaking something they care about more. this is what monetary policy looks like with no central bank. the hard part is getting a decentralized system to agree that changing the rules is safe.

I saw @rsklwtf after he joined Polymarket to work on esports growth (Mainly Dota 2) , and I started paying attention for a dumb reason: I used to play a lot of Dota 2 and take it pretty seriously. Dota looks like it should be easy to misprice. Patches change the meta overnight, the draft matters before anyone moves, regions run hot and cold, and one fight can flip the whole map. Whoever understands why it flipped usually isn't the person trading the market. It mostly didn't play out that way. The match-winner market is priced pretty well, and it's the bets around it that are loose. Here's what I found. (Data note: I scraped resolved Dota markets from Polymarket's Gamma and CLOB APIs and matched them to game data from OpenDota, roughly Oct 2025 to Feb 2026, about 1,100 match-winner markets and 1,200 props. I only use markets that actually traded before the match started.) The match winner Match winner is the simplest market, one team wins and one loses, and it's priced like people are paying attention. The closing price is well calibrated, and it gets better from open to close: the Brier score goes from 0.234 at open to 0.194 at close. The price is sharpest right before the match, which is what you'd expect if real money is working the line. So much for "esports is niche, so it must be free money." On the main market that just isn't true. Match winner had around $15k median volume, the most of anything in the category, and there was no easy money in it. Everywhere else The loose stuff is the side bets: series length, game-one props, first blood. Close enough to the match to bet on, not the thing people actually study. Series over/under 2.5 games had median volume under $1k, against ~$15k on match winner. Way less attention on it, and the prices show it. Calibration error on the series line was about 3.4x worse than match winner. The clearest one was over 2.5 maps. The market had a full three-game series at about 47%; it actually happened about 36% of the time. So you take the under, which is just betting on the sweep, and that ran about +15% to +21% depending on how strict I was about which lines counted. Edges like that usually don't last, because someone notices and trades them out. This one stuck around because it was one step off the market everyone watches, with the same people betting into it and nobody keeping it honest. Good price on match winner, sloppy price a click over. The over sits high for a pretty human reason. People want more: more maps, more action, more chances for the underdog to make it close. The over is the fun bet. The game doesn't care about that. If one team is actually better, a Bo3 ends 2-0 fast, because a draft edge turns into lane pressure, lanes turn into map control, and map control turns into Roshan and high ground. It can still feel like a real series while it's already basically over. People were paying a bit extra for the match they wanted to watch, and the 2-0 kept landing. There's enough money on match winner to wash that out and not enough on the props. Regions are a different version of the same thing. Chinese teams in cross-region matches were priced around 41.9% and won about 30.5%. You'd guess a mostly-Western, English-speaking market would underrate Chinese teams, since fewer people follow the region. It went the other way and overrated them. Best guess is reputation lag. The big Chinese orgs have history and names everyone knows, and the market kept pricing the version of them from a couple of years back, into a stretch where they were weaker. The market knew who these teams were. It just hadn't marked them down yet. A patch or a roster change or one bad tournament moves a region faster than its name does, and the price stays stuck on the name. The live markets have a timing version of the same problem. Dota hands you something most events don't: a game state you can read in numbers. Gold lead, XP lead, towers, Roshan, buybacks, draft timings. And every Polymarket trade has a timestamp. So you can line the two up and see how long the price takes to move after the game does. In one game I looked at, the price lagged a simple gold/xp win-probability model by about four minutes. That's a single game and the correlation was weak, so the four minutes doesn't mean much on its own. I ran it to check that the measurement works, and it does. People are going to bet on esports regardless; the open question is whether the price can keep up with a game that swings this fast. Caveats The prop edge is real in the data, but you can’t put much size on it. A market with under $1k of median volume doesn’t suddenly become scalable just because the ROI looks attractive. It’s mispriced largely because it’s too small for anyone to care enough to correct it. The regional effect is interesting, but it’s based on a single five-month window. A region can look systematically off for one season and completely normal the next. The latency hypothesis is the one I’d be most excited to test further and the one I’m least confident about. The pipeline works, but whether the edge survives across enough matches, in real time, and with sufficient liquidity to trade consistently is still an open question. None of this is free money. Some esports markets are remarkably efficient; others are still catching up. The interesting part isn’t that esports betting is inefficient. It’s that efficiency isn’t uniform. Markets don’t become sharp all at once, they mature one layer at a time. Match winners have largely reached that point. Props, live markets, and many niche markets haven’t. That makes esports a useful laboratory for market structure. The games evolve quickly, the data is public, participants are engaged, and liquidity arrives unevenly. You can watch price discovery happen in real time instead of assuming every market has already converged. The edge isn’t in esports itself. It’s in understanding which markets have finished maturing and which ones are still in the process of getting there.

The “perps are prediction markets” take is directionally cute, but mechanically it breaks fast. Crypto perps work because the underlying keeps existing. price moves, funding pulls, liquidations happen, and the market keeps trading. Prediction markets end. A binary can sit at 50c for weeks, then resolve straight to 0 or 1. that final move is not normal volatility. It is the instrument. So if you use a normal perp engine, you size margin against the calm part of the path and pretend resolution is just another price move. It isn’t. The paper tested this on real Polymarket data. median terminal jump was 0.50. at 5x leverage, your buffer is around 0.20. That is the whole problem. Halts, leverage compression, smarter funding, jump-aware margin all help around the edges. But they do not change the fact that the contract can settle through collateral. Prediction market perps are not just a product extension. They are a risk-engine problem disguised as one. And the engine has to understand resolution, not just price.

The “efficient risk transfer” part only works if the margin engine understands resolution. Otherwise you’re just putting leverage on a contract that can teleport to 0 or 1 and calling it innovation.

@kateirwin yeah, and it signals the fact that you think your project isn't gonna be sustainable by pure rev /growth anytime soon

launching a token is the fatal mistake it ultimately has more marketing value than anything else it attracts an audience that's too niche and therefore useless for long-term growth

Growth didn't erode the edge. It just made both halves of it bigger at the same rate. So the real test for this market was never how sharp the informed traders got. It's whether the optimists keep showing up to pay for them, and whether that holds when the tail is correlated instead of random. More on the mechanics: x.com/whanodd/status…

Meanwhile the informed flow that was supposed to erase that tax got bigger too, hitting for the full distance to settlement instead of a tick. Both forces scaled together. The tax kept growing. The informed losses kept growing. And net maker profit sat in the same 1-3¢ band the entire way, like the two sides were balancing each other out rather than one winning.

Every price on Kalshi is wrong in the same direction. I didn't expect that to be the thing keeping its market makers solvent. 41.6 million trades later, here's what's actually going on: 🧵

@rsklwtf @Polymarket Congrats! Wen dota 2?

[i'm joining @polymarket as esports growth] hello everyone! you've probably noticed that i've been a bit absent and haven't posted anything here for a while. the reason is that five months ago, i set myself a goal - to land a job at @polymarket by any means necessary. it wasn't an easy road. i talked to a lot of people connected to polymarket (i think i spoke to about 100 people), pitched many of my ideas, and it looks like it finally paid off. i've always believed that if you really want something and work for it, you can achieve it - even when people tell you that you won't. if you're a great creator in the prediction markets space - specifically in esports - dm me, and we can figure out ways to collaborate. let's build the future of prediction markets together!

@Neesh774 I’m sure its not because they ship like 50 features weekly

i think codex has a memory leak :(