Dropper @DropperPM

People are burning hundreds of thousands of dollars on an outcome that has already been decided, and you're incentivizing it. This market has already been clarified and is just going through the standard resolution process. UMA is voting on its resolution, and every voter is going to vote NO, in line with the clarification. It’s 100% going to resolve NO in about 30 hours.

x.com/i/article/2061…

I'm so sorry, man. I hope you're doing okay. I was on the other side of that trade, and I understand how fucked up this is. Experienced users like me are the ones who benefit from this type of situation, but in the long run, it's going to kill the platform. Trust me, most of us have advocated for changes (some kind of rulebook or another mechanism to protect noobs from invisible rules and precedents), but it seems like the team simply doesn't care. There is no such thing as free money on Polymarket. If you think something has already happened but the market still isn't trading close to 100c, there's a cuck somewhere.

Block every single slop poster who told you this market was free

If you had been following Brazilian news over the past few months, you’d be convinced Neymar had almost no chance of making the World Cup squad. Pretty much every major newspaper reported his chances were slim, and many top journalists said they would be surprised if he made the final list. Yet on Polymarket, his odds stayed around 40% the entire time. This week, after it became increasingly clear that Neymar actually had a strong chance of being selected by Ancelotti, some journalists still weren't even considering his name. That’s the beauty of prediction markets. The market never seemed nearly as convinced as the media did, and neither did I.

@Sonecarox @Polymarket

@GuiadasApostas Te dou toda a certeza do mundo que não tem ngm com informação privilegiada betando nesse mercado, é tudo especulação. Eu sou o top holder...

@Frosen Funny thing is I hit every single point on this list and I’m still down 8k

@XPredicter @Polymarket he just needs to somehow hack CTFv2 tomorrow

@Atlantislq Believe in something

@Bieldomaul É foda... todo post br que vejo é slop

Huge new update on @PredictFolio ! Go check it out: predictfolio.com

PredictFolio @PredictFolio

3 months ago

We just launched the biggest update ever! Our new website predictfolio.com is now a must for EVERY prediction market user: - PnL & Performance PER market - Near real time trade activity - See your counter parties in EVERY trade - Combined PnL for events with multiple

52 42 296 68K 204

@luanalopeslara Excelente parceria, parabéns! 🇧🇷

Polymarket trader @DropperPM has been making $45K on average per month. Not a single loss in this month. Take a look at his daily performance: predictfolio.com/@Dropper

@PredictFolio

@MrBeastInsights Every market involving MrBeast is heavily insider traded, Kalshi just fined one of his employees for that

@mustafap0ly 👀

@metaproph3t @solana_sailor @Polymarket yes, he was

I agree wholeheartedly with this take, and was equally baffled at the ruling. More frustrating than any monetary loss is the fact that nothing is improving on the rules fight front, even as the companies grow. It's getting worse, in fact. I'll detail 3 markets. LONG post ahead. Please remember that rule fights are subjective, and this is just one man's opinion. I will try to make a coherent point, even if you think my rules opinions are totally stupid and wrong. (1) Invasion of the Maduro Snatchers The invasion controvery centers around a subjective question -- "did the United States invade Venezuela?" That's a broad issue, with nebulous answers. It certainly didn't look or feel like an "invasion" of our army into Venezuela. There were not troops marching through fields, or special forces securing airports. So how do you define "invade"? Polymarket's definition: "This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET." It clearly was a military offensive: the military went in with 150 aircraft that took off from 20 different US bases, killed 100 people, and extracted Venezuela's head of state. That part isn't in dispute. On the second part of the rules: 'establish control'... in-and-out missions happen all the time, although obv less consequential than this one. The vast majority of missions are not in themselves an invasion, because the military simply leaves instead of trying to exert control. If merely entering a country was an invasion, we'd have the US "invading" multiple countries a year. So, in reaction to the news of Maduro's capture, the market on whether there would be a Venezuelan invasion by January 31st went from 2.5c for Yes to a very large initial spike (in the fog of war). But then quickly was trading in the range of 10-20c for Yes. The Yes bettors were thinking there may be further action that gets to a Yes resolution. Then Trump had his press conference. In the press conference, Trump said -- inexplicably and shockingly -- that the United States now runs Venezuela. The price immediately started shooting up for an invasion, it hit 20, then 30, then 40, then 50, etc. as Trump kept talking. (Trump has since doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on this, including a NYT interview on Thursday morning where he said the US would continue running Venezuela for years.) If we then circle back to Polymarket's definition of "invasion," did the US "intend to establish control over any portion of Venezuela"? Well, uh yeah, the answer from the Commander-in-chief of the US military appears to be a resounding YES! He is quite literally saying that we control the whole country after this military operation. And, even if we don't control it, the attempt to control is undeniably a primary motivation here -- aka the word "intend" becomes important. So if the two prongs of the Yes criteria are met -- military action & intended to establish control -- how do they justify screwing over all of the Yes buyers? Polymarket CLARIFIED the rules and indicated that Trump equivocated on running Venezuela and cited "ongoing talks with the Venezuelan government." But, did that happen? Trump didn't equivocate that I've seen, and hasn't since. Polymarket essentially made that part up. They started with an answer -- they wanted No -- and then invented a way to bypass their own rules. (Incidentally, a dictionary definition of the word "invade:" to use military force to attempt to subjugate a territory. When Trump said we run the country now, it's the textbook definition of subjugating. The operative fact here shifts away from whether the mission was "in-and-out" and shifts onto the extraordinary fact that Trump is claiming subjugation of a country.) So, anyway, Polymarket essentially decided that their fine print rules are going in the trash, and that because it doesn't really feel like an invasion, then we're okay to ignore the rules that we wrote and just kinda do what we want and not count it. Which is what it is. Yes holders BTFO, crying, etc. etc. It happens. And to be honest, that could be a justifiable position!! It could be that because it's not a traditional invasion like you see in a movie, that's not what they had in mind when they wrote their rules. It could be that their modus operandi is to run things on vibes rather than the fine print. This is a legitimate (albeit subjective) strategy to address rule fights. The catch: if you're going to do resolution based on vibes, you have to be consistent. And they're not. Not even remotely. (2) Blackmail's Immaculate Conception Two weeks earlier, on Christmas Eve, the exact opposite occurred. They threw the vibes into the trash, and expired an Epstein 'blackmail' market based on a very, very strict reading of their rules (I'd argue they again just made stuff up in order to get to the answer they wanted). [I should note here -- in both of these cases I'm discussing, Polymarket's decision disproportionately benefitted traders in their affiliate program, which is a whole different and complex can of worms. The point is that there is zero accountability, and an incestuous nature to a lot of these 'rules fights.' There are sometimes suspicious trades right before a clarification appears. One thing is clear: noobs nearly always lose, and people that have financial relationships with Polymarket tend to be the beneficiaries. It's all very opaque and a bit dystopian. Almost as if the money isn't real, and it's just a game. Rules fight will continue to be one of the largest bottlenecks to growing prediction markets, and that is especially true if they continue to be so...grimy.] So back to the immaculate conception: on Christmas Eve, the "Epstein blackmail evidence released by December 31st?" market was trading at 4c when it was bought to 99c and proposed for Yes at 7:30am on Dec 24th. Why? Based on a single document released days earlier. Polymarket clarified at 2pm that it was indeed blackmail, and the market expired for Yes. The document: A curious turn of events, considering that (1) the FBI had previously stated (and probably stands by it right now) that they hadn't found evidence of Epstein blackmailing; (2) there is no direct reference to blackmail in this email; and (3) there were zero headlines anywhere of blackmail evidence being found in the Epstein files (and there are still none, two weeks later). The vibes around blackmail, as it pertains to Epstein, were distinctly and continue to be distinctly: "we haven't found any Epstein blackmail evidence yet." Even more curious about this Polymarket ruling is the fact that their rules REQUIRE either a "clear consensus of credible reporting" or a "direct statement." Here, there were neither. I'll paste the rules in their entirety: Instead of a "direct statement" or some reporting of facts, an Assistant US Attorney makes an allegation via email about a person hired by Epstein who may have attempted to intimidate a witness. There was no direct accusation of any type of criminal behavior, be it intimidation or blackmail. It falls distinctly, in my opinion, into the "general references" part of their rules which say quite clearly that vague accusations will not qualify. Needless to say, Polymarket clarified that the document "detailed qualifying blackmail" without much further explanation. As with other clarifications, that is that. The voice of Oz makes a proclamation. Now...I think, much like the previous case, this is not a simple, cut & dry, rules fight. If you squint, you can connect dots and decide that it's blackmail. I am sure some people reading this think "well the email looks like blackmail to me." Legit take. I personally think you're wrong (and I consulted a couple of lawyers who are experts in this area who said the email was not an example of blackmail, but could be evidence of intimidation)....but that's also neither here nor there at this point. But WHAT IS simple and what is cut & dry and what is here and there: the two standards applied to the two disputes were very, VERY different. It is incoherent to apply a "vibes" approach to one market where your fine print rules go in the trash...and then "but ackshually" a second market and elevate an obscure email to contort into a line buried in your fine print rules that doesn't match any vibes at all (Polymarket stands alone in declaring that blackmail has been found in the Epstein files. No news publication or law enforcement officials have joined them in the two weeks since the market expired). On top of the vascillating nature of clarifications being essentially randomized, it is unclear how much research, if any, is going into any of this. The people writing and reviewing the rules are not subject matter experts. Nor is it likely that subject matter experts are consulted or considered to be consulted. And yet millions of dollars were in the balance on these decisions. How much time and effort and seriousness goes into the clarifications? What research was done? Who decided it? What thought process went into it? Were lawyers consulted to see if the email was blackmail? Did they consult with any global affairs expert to figure out if Trump saying he runs Venezuela now constitutes an intent to control? My assumption is that very, very little is done. My assumption is that some underpaid staffer who is probably a recent graduate with an inapplicable degree looked at it for maybe 30 minutes, maybe consulted with a couple of co-workers, and then made the decision. It could be that one employee loves a vibes approach and another one hates vibes, and how your huge bet expires that day comes down to who is on the clock at any given time. The point is that it is all opaque, and we have no clue what happens. There's no rulebook. There's no transparency. Occassionally, traders seem to be tipped off to clarifications ahead of time. (And, in that vein, what account made $22k off the Christmas immaculate conception of blackmail? Our old friend and unscrupulous denizen aenews, who has a rap sheet longer than Al Capone.) Over the years, I've been asked by three different people at Polymarket: what I would do if I could fix/improve/change one thing about the market? The answer I give is the same each time, years on end: create a rulebook or some set of guiding principles about expiring markets that everyone can read. Hire someone who is really smart and unbiased to evaluate these markets. Professionalize the rules/expiration/dispute process! Not only should all of this be done for people like me, but it should especially be done for people that are new and don't know what is going on. One of the reasons that noobies keep getting exploited in these markets (among many reasons) is that they don't even know about rules fights AT ALL. How would you know? There's no explanations. Regulars of prediction markets know the precedent, noobies might not even know what the word precedent means let alone what precedents exist. It's hard enough to know the basic market mechanisms -- proposals, disputes, and clarifications. They may not know that all of this is decided in a channel on Discord. And even if they did learn how to propose a market, they probably aren't yet aware that it is now impossible for them to do this (Polymarket turned off the decentralized market proposals a few months ago; only a few whitelisted wallets can expire markets now -- I've proposed like a thousand+ markets, but I'm unable to propose anything. Whereas some of the very, very worst users were let into the small club). Market expiration is a total mess. Noobies bear the brunt of it, and lose real money. By the millions. Polymarket deemphasizes it, and it is only getting worse. In my opinion, prediction markets should foster an environment where new users are welcomed and can learn how the site works very quickly and very transparently. Not where they are exploited and discarded. The first path is one of growth and legitimacy. The second path is a borderline kleptocracy. (3) Waiting for Trudeau Lest you think Polymarket is alone in vexing problems, let's highlight Kalshi yet again shooting themselves in the foot with inexplicable, misleading rules. And a boneheaded decision to not simply...expire the market to what actually happened. Late in 2024, Kalshi created a market, "Who will the President meet with in 2025?" that encompassed both the last few days of Biden and then Trump's first year. The criteria for winning: the President and [insert world leader] have to meet by the end of the year via a handshake or speaking with each other. If that happens, Yes wins. Straight forward. Lo and behold, a few days into the new year, President Biden met with one of the people in the market: Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau attended the state funeral for Jimmy Carter. They were shown shaking hands live on TV (pictured below) on the major networks, including C-SPAN -- which still has the video up (screenshot of the video & then opposite view below). Multiple national reporters noted that Biden shook hands with Justin Trudeau. It was beyond doubt and extremely well-documented that it happened. Easy win! The price went to 99c for Yes, with everyone waiting for expiration. But nahhhhhhhhh, they tricked ya, got ya....on January 1st, 2026, the market paid out at 0. Why? Because Kalshi only counted two sources for whether Biden and Trudeau met: the White House or The New York Times (neither of which reported the handshake). Sources that were not counted? Everyone and everything else on earth, including both Biden himself and Justin Trudeau himself. If Trudeau walked into the Kalshi office and said "I just met Biden," it wouldn't count unless the NYT or White House also posted it. So for the remaining 11.5 months of 2025, people that owned Yes of something that already happened were left posting in the comments that Trudeau/Biden already met. Over and over and over again. Appeals to Kalshi did nothing. People tried to contact New York Times reporters to get it into the newspaper, unsuccessfully. I even told someone half-jokingly (and half not!) that you should just post the C-SPAN screenshot in the New York Times comment section. Boom, the proof is now in the NYT. Lol. Not sure if anyone tried that. Kalshi -- a company that occassionally pays out the wrong winners (well-documented at this point, including my post about them paying out the Oscar ratings market completely backwards) -- made a firm decision to simply ignore reality and create a fake reality. They chose to expire a prediction market on an event that already happened to No. It's just so wrong on a fundamental level. What's the point of a prediction market if not to predict events happening? Kalshi, if they ever did respond to the Trudeau market, will undoubtedly say "well, we can't do anything, our hands are tied, because the White House and the New York Times were the only sources." But they'd be lying, because their Market Outcome Review Process (among other powers) gives them carte blanche to correct any errors, big or small. They, in fact, silently edit the rules all the time. They've also invoked special powers to unwind trades that adversely impacted one of the market-makers when the market-maker bot "broke" according to them (try asking for that as a regular user, and you'll probably be able to hear them laughing from hundreds of miles away). They go out of their way to help certain traders whose financial interests are aligned with Kalshi. We need less favoritism, more transparency, and more common sense. One piece of common sense: don't force your markets to expire against reality. I also wanted to bring up this market because it illustrates one of my biggest pet peeves in prediction markets (and something that really adversely impacts noobies): when the title & fine print have a mismatch. To me, one of the cardinal sins of prediction markets is to create a market where people think they are trading one thing, but in the fine print rules it's another thing entirely. The title should encompass the contract as much as possible. You should not title a market "Will Biden meet Justin Trudeau?" if, after these two people meet, you say it doesn't count. The title of this market should have been "Will the White House or NYT report that Biden has met Justin Trudeau?" That's a really dumb and clunky title! Which is probably your first hint that you've f-ed up. Addendum -- $20 Billion in Stinkin' Badges The tldr of Polymarket and Kalshi right now: these two companies, each now worth around $10 billion, are full gas pedal on growth and not much else. They are spending tens upon tens of millions on promotion. I think the product itself is languishinig quite a bit. Both sites are breaking more than they did in 2024; the Kalshi exchange had like 4 pauses yesterday while trading. The app barely works. Kalshi often breaks on football days and people lose real money because they can't cancel their orders. Polymarket encounters orderbook errors constantly, for months now, with no explanation or fixes in sight. People also lose money to that. There's one upgrade that I've gotten a "oh that's about to be put up" for 2 YEARS running. And rules issues...well those are not prioritized even remotely by anyone. It remains a consistent pain point. You get negative headlines, like the tweet that I'm quoting, on a routine basis that range from very silly to very troubling. To me, this is hugely embarrassing! It's so amateurish. Another not-so-great sign: rule clarifications continually seem to benefit certain users in a way that appears uncouth, to use a polite term. It's hazier on Kalshi, because there is obfuscation on whether rulings/rule changes are benefitting their affiliated Kalshi Trading or semi-affiliated SIG. KT claims that clarifications hurt them more than any other user. Fact check: maybe! We have no clue. Obviously I love to see prediction markets grow! Spending on growth is great! I'm a true believer. This is my whole career. The valuations are amazing, and proof that the concept has staying power. But it's discouraging that half of Twitter has a Kalshi or Polymarket badge and it's discouraging there's a new headline every couple hours like White Castle is now the official burger prediction partner of Kalshi/Polymarket...and meanwhile the nascent companies deprioritize the actual business of running a functional market. Fin.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Trader 53 @trader_53

5 months ago

Gamblers, trying to collect their payout from Polymarket, left baffled as they learn that the US operation carried out in Venzuela does not meet Polymarket's definition of an invasion - Marketwatch

552 1K 12K 3.0M 2K