Polymarketthat sounds like pure exploit rather than gaming the system
that sounds like pure exploit rather than gaming the system
melmalmelma参与话题 4消息总数 157
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 157 条，显示第 1-50 条possibly, different mechanism though if the orders are visible and not flashing, but not tradeable
possibly, different mechanism though if the orders are visible and not flashing, but not tradeable
check any book with a wide spread, and rewards enabled. not sure if the OB on polymarkets UI can pick it up - but you'll likely see a bid / offer flash for <100ms and then disappear
check any book with a wide spread, and rewards enabled. not sure if the OB on polymarkets UI can pick it up - but you'll likely see a bid / offer flash for <100ms and then disappear
this is flashing
this is flashing
^ i think you're talking about something else vini
^ i think you're talking about something else vini
i reckon they're getting a few $k a day doing this, probably rotating accounts and what not to try fly under the radar
i reckon they're getting a few $k a day doing this, probably rotating accounts and what not to try fly under the radar
which i'd imagine is not what poly intended
which i'd imagine is not what poly intended
yeh its ofc valid, but here quite clearly serving no other purpose than to farm rewards without providing any actual liquidity
yeh its ofc valid, but here quite clearly serving no other purpose than to farm rewards without providing any actual liquidity
yeh lots of reasonable solutions
yeh lots of reasonable solutions
now they wont get all the liquidity rewards because of the 1 second random sampling. but it is in effect riskless pnl
now they wont get all the liquidity rewards because of the 1 second random sampling. but it is in effect riskless pnl
so if you submit and then cancel all, you can do so before any bot can even react to seeing the book update, and fire its own order. ofc they're not uniformly timing when they submit
so if you submit and then cancel all, you can do so before any bot can even react to seeing the book update, and fire its own order. ofc they're not uniformly timing when they submit
see thats the thing, if they've built it correctly you cant
see thats the thing, if they've built it correctly you cant
<@1361217824776786031> - i can provide more information in DM as to what i think they're doing if its helpful. quite smart it seems but ofc not at all what the rewards program is intended for
<@1361217824776786031> - i can provide more information in DM as to what i think they're doing if its helpful. quite smart it seems but ofc not at all what the rewards program is intended for
someone has figured out how to game the rewards system and is flashing orders on illiquid books to collect rewards without providing actual tradeable liquidity. see it in quite a few places. has this been raised with poly yet?
someone has figured out how to game the rewards system and is flashing orders on illiquid books to collect rewards without providing actual tradeable liquidity. see it in quite a few places. has this been raised with poly yet?
i hope thats not it
i hope thats not it
good troll haha
good troll haha
i think you need todo some more work on the price to hear an actual argument from N
i think you need todo some more work on the price to hear an actual argument from N
fv is 70+ though, argument is watertight
fv is 70+ though, argument is watertight
just market making right?
just market making right?
i take back my statement
i take back my statement
nicely done
nicely done
Car
Car
you're an idiot
you're an idiot
i wish you luck
i wish you luck
"60 days only" = "trump agreed to fees" can't believe you're still trying this bullshit LOL
"60 days only" = "trump agreed to fees" can't believe you're still trying this bullshit LOL
no way are we back on transit fees
no way are we back on transit fees
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-successfully-targets-shipping-byptptpt-20260629202434609
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-successfully-targets-shipping-byptptpt-20260629202434609
bm ob iran targets shipping by
bm ob iran targets shipping by
guys
guys
reuters article alfa
reuters article alfa
there are some decent P4 arguments, the uma rocks argument was not it though lol
there are some decent P4 arguments, the uma rocks argument was not it though lol
- the rules are better to start with - they dont have nearly as many niche geopol markets that get disputed - it's at least an employee of their company, who isn't conflicted. even if they sometimes give bad clari
- the rules are better to start with - they dont have nearly as many niche geopol markets that get disputed - it's at least an employee of their company, who isn't conflicted. even if they sometimes give bad clari
literally admitting to it lol
literally admitting to it lol
https://www.wsj.com/finance/polymarket-bet-disputes-fb1b8c6a > Contacted over Discord, Scout denied manipulating markets or trying to swing votes to reach blatantly wrong conclusions. But he acknowledged that he routinely placed bets in disputed Polymarket contracts while participating in UMA votes to resolve those same disputes. > Scout, who declined to give his name, argued that such trading benefited the market and helped UMA resolve disputes accurately. Voters without skin in the game spent “five minutes max” researching disputes, while voters like himself were financially motivated to find the best resolutions, he argued. > “You can either have traders with a conflict of interest, or morons with no conflict of interest,” he said. “There’s not really a good middle ground.”
https://www.wsj.com/finance/polymarket-bet-disputes-fb1b8c6a > Contacted over Discord, Scout denied manipulating markets or trying to swing votes to reach blatantly wrong conclusions. But he acknowledged that he routinely placed bets in disputed Polymarket contracts while participating in UMA votes to resolve those same disputes. > Scout, who declined to give his name, argued that such trading benefited the market and helped UMA resolve disputes accurately. Voters without skin in the game spent “five minutes max” researching disputes, while voters like himself were financially motivated to find the best resolutions, he argued. > “You can either have traders with a conflict of interest, or morons with no conflict of interest,” he said. “There’s not really a good middle ground.”
probably not successfully, but theres a price for it
probably not successfully, but theres a price for it
definition of "senior" is going to get contested basically
definition of "senior" is going to get contested basically
i dont think people read the rules
i dont think people read the rules
> I recommend looking at my example images of "clear/dirty" and the flipped "FILA" logo. If you think those should count as mentions of "clean/dirty" or "FILA", then vote Yes, I suppose guess i vote yes
> I recommend looking at my example images of "clear/dirty" and the flipped "FILA" logo. If you think those should count as mentions of "clean/dirty" or "FILA", then vote Yes, I suppose guess i vote yes
never learnt to read i guess? 😂 makes sense
never learnt to read i guess? 😂 makes sense
how is this even disputed, nothing like MIGA lol
how is this even disputed, nothing like MIGA lol
im late to this market
im late to this market
fair, definitely an improvement though
fair, definitely an improvement though
6c @ 48c lol
6c @ 48c lol
not that the argument really needs much more help
not that the argument really needs much more help
fancy posting for me? uma rank 0 lol
fancy posting for me? uma rank 0 lol
there's also a "by" market
there's also a "by" market
he's speaking to people so its diplomacy
he's speaking to people so its diplomacy
P2 (YES) per https://x.com/Southcom/status/2070348976713293942 - The rules are quite clear on their exclusions, and they do not exclude humanitarian / disaster recovery military operations. - The Israeli troops enter Suwayada is not a parallel market - pre-clarification it's rules stated "Enter Suwayda Governorate in Syria **for military operations**". The clarification stated that providing humanitarian aid isn't a military operation. Venz market **does not** have a "for military operations" carve out. - The market rules on "US forces enter Iran by Dec" were much closer, as they also don't have the "for military operations" line, the clarification for this market explicitly states: "enter... for operational purposes (e.g., military, **humanitarian**, etc.) will qualify." --- could someone be so kind to post this in UMA if they can't be bothered to write their own case. i dont see any arguments yet breaking down the difference between the previous markets and clarifications
P2 (YES) per https://x.com/Southcom/status/2070348976713293942 - The rules are quite clear on their exclusions, and they do not exclude humanitarian / disaster recovery military operations. - The Israeli troops enter Suwayada is not a parallel market - pre-clarification it's rules stated "Enter Suwayda Governorate in Syria **for military operations**". The clarification stated that providing humanitarian aid isn't a military operation. Venz market **does not** have a "for military operations" carve out. - The market rules on "US forces enter Iran by Dec" were much closer, as they also don't have the "for military operations" line, the clarification for this market explicitly states: "enter... for operational purposes (e.g., military, **humanitarian**, etc.) will qualify." --- could someone be so kind to post this in UMA if they can't be bothered to write their own case. i dont see any arguments yet breaking down the difference between the previous markets and clarifications
war is technically diplomatic
war is technically diplomatic
it's diplomatic bro, the US have a whole handbook on military FDR responses just to tell you its basically the same as a diplomatic meeting
it's diplomatic bro, the US have a whole handbook on military FDR responses just to tell you its basically the same as a diplomatic meeting
第 1 / 4 页
下一页 →