聊天记录
共 4 条，显示第 1-4 条
Now the situation has become even harder to recover from. The new taker fee tiers are based on trading volume and the accounts that accumulated that volume through the auto-referral exploit are precisely the ones who now qualify for the highest discounts (up to 50% off fees). In other words, the people who cheated are being rewarded twice: first with the 30% referral rebate, and now with tier discounts earned on volume that was artificially subsidized. Meanwhile, accounts like mine, which played by the rules and traded at full fees, are stuck at the bottom tier, forced to trade at a loss just to close the gap.
My suggestion would be to consider temporarily reverting both the taker tier system and the referral program for a period of two or three months, and allowing all users to compete on equal footing from a clean slate. This would give honest participants a fair window to earn their tiers legitimately, and would meaningfully correct the advantage that was handed to those who exploited the referral program.
I'd genuinely appreciate any steps Polymarket can take to address this. I would have no problem providing extra information to prove the statements I am making.
Now the situation has become even harder to recover from. The new taker fee tiers are based on trading volume and the accounts that accumulated that volume through the auto-referral exploit are precisely the ones who now qualify for the highest discounts (up to 50% off fees). In other words, the people who cheated are being rewarded twice: first with the 30% referral rebate, and now with tier discounts earned on volume that was artificially subsidized. Meanwhile, accounts like mine, which played by the rules and traded at full fees, are stuck at the bottom tier, forced to trade at a loss just to close the gap.
My suggestion would be to consider temporarily reverting both the taker tier system and the referral program for a period of two or three months, and allowing all users to compete on equal footing from a clean slate. This would give honest participants a fair window to earn their tiers legitimately, and would meaningfully correct the advantage that was handed to those who exploited the referral program.
I'd genuinely appreciate any steps Polymarket can take to address this. I would have no problem providing extra information to prove the statements I am making.
Hi Polymarket team,
I'd like to explain my situation and ask whether there's anything that can be done.
My account is https://polymarket.com/@btcforthewin. I've been running crypto trading bots on your platform for the past 3 months, with strategies that were carefully fine-tuned, backtested, and validated to be profitable.
When you launched the referral program, I noticed the auto-referral exploit that would have given me a 30% fee rebate. I made the conscious decision not to pursue it since it violated your rules, but the consequence is that my strategies, which were calibrated around the standard fee structure, suddenly stopped performing. All of them degraded at the same time, which strongly suggests that many other participants were using auto-referrals and trading with an effective 30% fee discount. What made this particularly clear is that when I modeled my strategies with a 30% fee discount applied, the same discount the auto-referral accounts were effectively getting, they performed exactly as designed. The fee structure wasn't the flaw in my strategies, the uneven fee structure across participants was. I turned off all my bots and stopped trading to wait for the situation to resolve.
Hi Polymarket team,
I'd like to explain my situation and ask whether there's anything that can be done.
My account is https://polymarket.com/@btcforthewin. I've been running crypto trading bots on your platform for the past 3 months, with strategies that were carefully fine-tuned, backtested, and validated to be profitable.
When you launched the referral program, I noticed the auto-referral exploit that would have given me a 30% fee rebate. I made the conscious decision not to pursue it since it violated your rules, but the consequence is that my strategies, which were calibrated around the standard fee structure, suddenly stopped performing. All of them degraded at the same time, which strongly suggests that many other participants were using auto-referrals and trading with an effective 30% fee discount. What made this particularly clear is that when I modeled my strategies with a 30% fee discount applied, the same discount the auto-referral accounts were effectively getting, they performed exactly as designed. The fee structure wasn't the flaw in my strategies, the uneven fee structure across participants was. I turned off all my bots and stopped trading to wait for the situation to resolve.
is there any way i can know my current monthly weighted volume? to know how close i am to the next tier
is there any way i can know my current monthly weighted volume? to know how close i am to the next tier
I hope the referral campaign actually succeeded in bringing more users to the platform, because it has clearly had a significant impact on the crypto markets. At the moment, it seems that self-referrals are not being properly prevented, and the handling of the taker tier announcement has come across as highly unprofessional.
When the fee increase was announced, the deadline was not extended by an additional week. Instead, the new fees took effect on the very same day they were announced. Is it so hard to ask for a new deadline on the taker tiers?
I hope the referral campaign actually succeeded in bringing more users to the platform, because it has clearly had a significant impact on the crypto markets. At the moment, it seems that self-referrals are not being properly prevented, and the handling of the taker tier announcement has come across as highly unprofessional.
When the fee increase was announced, the deadline was not extended by an additional week. Instead, the new fees took effect on the very same day they were announced. Is it so hard to ask for a new deadline on the taker tiers?
Polymarket