Paradigm researchers led by Storm Slivkoff have discovered that Polymarket’s trading volume figures have been double-counted on almost every major dashboard.Paradigm researchers led by Storm Slivkoff have discovered that Polymarket’s trading volume figures have been double-counted on almost every major dashboard.

Paradigm flags double-counted volumes in Polymarket trading data

2025/12/09 16:03

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

Polymarket double-counts trading figures, Paradigm reveals.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.

Get up to $30,050 in trading rewards when you join Bybit today

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

BFX Presale Raises $7.5M as Solana Holds $243 and Avalanche Eyes $1B Treasury — Best Cryptos to Buy in 2025

BFX Presale Raises $7.5M as Solana Holds $243 and Avalanche Eyes $1B Treasury — Best Cryptos to Buy in 2025

BFX presale hits $7.5M with tokens at $0.024 and 30% bonus code BLOCK30, while Solana holds $243 and Avalanche builds a $1B treasury to attract institutions.
Share
Blockchainreporter2025/09/18 01:07
OCC Findings Suggest Major U.S. Banks Restricted Access for Digital Asset Firms Amid Debanking Probe

OCC Findings Suggest Major U.S. Banks Restricted Access for Digital Asset Firms Amid Debanking Probe

The post OCC Findings Suggest Major U.S. Banks Restricted Access for Digital Asset Firms Amid Debanking Probe appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has confirmed that nine major U.S. banks engaged in debanking practices from 2020 to 2023, restricting access for digital asset firms and other sectors. This marks the first official acknowledgment of these policies, which limited services based on customer types, affecting crypto businesses significantly. OCC report highlights inappropriate distinctions by banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, targeting crypto and high-risk sectors. Nine banks reviewed showed similar policies restricting customer access without objective risk assessments. Impacted industries include digital asset firms, with potential referrals to the Attorney General for unlawful practices. Discover how major U.S. banks’ debanking policies hit crypto firms hard, per OCC’s 2025 report. Learn the implications for digital assets and what regulators are doing next—stay informed on banking risks today! What Are the OCC’s Findings on Banks Debanking Crypto Firms? Banks debanking crypto firms involves major financial institutions limiting or denying services to digital asset businesses based on perceived risks, as detailed in a recent Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) report. From 2020 to 2023, nine of the largest U.S. banks implemented policies that required escalated reviews or outright restrictions for certain customers, including those in the crypto sector. This practice, now publicly confirmed, underscores ongoing tensions between traditional banking and emerging digital asset industries. How Did These Debanking Practices Affect Digital Asset Companies? The OCC’s six-page report, released on Wednesday, revealed that institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, Capital One, PNC Financial Services Group, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal made distinctions among customers that were deemed inappropriate. For digital asset firms, this meant heightened scrutiny or complete denial of banking services, hindering operations in an already volatile market. The regulator noted that these policies spanned…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/11 11:01