|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
- A smart contract event bug may have double-counted Polymarket trades, inflating reported volumes.
- Analysts warn dashboards may be overstating activity by orders of magnitude.
- The issue emerges as Polymarket expands U.S.-regulated prediction markets.
Polymarket, one of crypto’s fastest-growing prediction platforms, is facing renewed scrutiny after researchers discovered that a critical data bug may have significantly overstated its reported trading volumes. The issue, uncovered by Paradigm analysts, raises questions about the accuracy of widely cited market dashboards and the broader trustworthiness of on-chain prediction markets.
The findings come at a sensitive time for Polymarket, which recently re-entered the U.S. market under regulatory oversight and has been positioning itself as a leader in the rapidly expanding prediction market landscape.
Data Bug May Have Doubled Reported Trading Volumes
The anomaly was first highlighted by Paradigm founder Matt Huang, who warned that many dashboards are “double-counting” Polymarket activity. The problem stems from how the platform’s smart contracts emit OrderFilled events during trades.
According to Paradigm data analyst Storm, each individual trade can generate two separate on-chain records — one for the maker and one for the taker — which most analytics tools mistakenly treat as two distinct transactions.
This design means even trivial trades appear inflated. A $4.13 YES position could be displayed as $8.26. More complex trades — including position merges — can distort numbers even further. Researcher Dan Smith shared an example where a $90 order appeared on dashboards as $6,899.80, underscoring the magnitude of misreported activity.
Tests conducted across Polymarket’s various trade types revealed consistent double-counting, Storm said, adding that the bug impacts both notional volume and cashflow volume. He emphasized that the discrepancies have no connection to wash trading or manipulation — the issue stems purely from how the underlying smart contract logs data.
Transparency Questions Emerge at a Pivotal Moment
The timing of the discovery comes just weeks after Polymarket secured a CFTC no-action letter, enabling it to reopen access to U.S. users through a waitlist-based rollout. The platform has been expanding regulated markets in sports, politics, crypto, and global events — a move aimed at increasing mainstream adoption and institutional participation.
Also Read: Polymarket Integrates Chainlink Oracles to Revolutionize Crypto Prediction Markets
However, the data bug creates uncertainty over key performance metrics that analysts, traders, and regulators rely on to assess platform growth. With competitors such as Kalshi expanding aggressively, accurate reporting is essential to maintaining credibility in a sector built on information transparency.
The stakes were further elevated after a separate incident involving a fake message about a delayed Token Generation Event (TGE) for “Lighter,” which went viral and caused Polymarket odds to crash from 85% to 22% within minutes. Although users later confirmed the message was false, the rapid swing highlighted the fragility of prediction markets exposed to real-time misinformation.
Dashboard Numbers Could Be Far Lower Than Reported
Last week, Dune Analytics reported $3.7 billion in Polymarket trading volume for November. But if Paradigm’s findings hold, the actual figure may be “many orders of magnitude lower.” The discrepancy underscores a growing concern: without standardized reporting, even on-chain markets — often viewed as transparent by default — can present misleading data.
Polymarket’s data bug shines a light on the inherent complexity of interpreting on-chain analytics. With regulators watching closely and competition intensifying, accuracy and transparency will be critical in shaping user trust. Until dashboards correct their methodology, analysts warn that traders should view Polymarket volume figures with caution.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The author’s views are personal and may not reflect the views of Chain Affairs. Before making any investment decisions, you should always conduct your own research. Chain Affairs is not responsible for any financial losses.
