Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Markets (DePMs)

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims every DePM fits a seven-stage modular workflow, and Polymarket won by following the Princeton splitting/orderbook model rather than Truthcoin's automated bookmaking.

desk verdict A genuinely useful SoK of DePM design space with a solid modular framework; two internal inconsistencies (abstract says eight stages, and Reality Cards doesn't fit the formal definitions) need fixing, but the core contribution is sound. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.15612 v4 pith:WXRBOLX2 submitted 2025-10-17 cs.CE cs.CRq-fin.TR

Nahid Rahman , Joseph Al-Chami , Jeremy Clark This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEcs.CRq-fin.TR
keywords decentralizedpredictionmarketsmarketmicrostructurePolymarketTruthcoinAugurmodularworkflowautomatedmakersoracleresolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that decentralized prediction markets (DePMs) are best understood not as monolithic systems but as a modular workflow of seven stages — underlying infrastructure, market topic, share structure and pricing, trading, market resolution, settlement, and archiving — and that the field's history is one of convergence. Its central claim is that Polymarket, the first DePM to break into mainstream attention, succeeded by bucking the early consensus: instead of the Truthcoin/Augur v1 model, where the market creator sets initial odds and a token vote resolves outcomes, Polymarket uses passive market creation, splitting (turning one dollar into one share of every outcome) to mint shares, hybrid orderbook/automated-market-maker (AMM) trading, and an optimistic oracle with dispute escalation. A sympathetic reader should care because, if the framework is right, a messy landscape of a hundred projects becomes comparable stage by stage, and the open problems — poorly defined market topics, manipulable resolution, untuned AMMs, incomplete archival data — become visible as gaps in specific modules. The paper does not claim a single best design; it claims a shared vocabulary and a set of trade-offs.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the seven-stage modular workflow itself: underlying infrastructure, market topic, share structure and pricing, trading, market resolution, settlement, and archiving. Each stage carries a small set of variants — winner-take-all (WTA), yes-no bundle (YNB), and negative-risk (YNB-NR) share structures; automated bookmaking, splitting, and matching for the first trade; arbiter, reporter network, crowdsourced vote, and optimistic resolution; pull versus push settlement. The workflow does the work of making systems comparable: choosing a variant in each stage fixes a design point, and the paper attaches trade-offs (decentralization, expressiveness, manipulation resistance) to e

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be a widely used DePM that cannot be placed in the seven-stage workflow without stretching or merging stages, or a pre-2014 system that already combined splitting, an orderbook, and passive market creation — which would erase the claimed contrast between Truthcoin and Princeton designs. A weaker but still decisive check is to audit the dashboard's 97 projects and show that a substantial cluster shares a design pattern absent from the taxonomy, such as parimutuel or self-settling architectures used as the primary design rather than edge cases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the entire DePM design space decomposes into seven modular stages, each with a small set of named variants and trade-offs, and that this decomposition explains the field's trajectory. The authors argue that early systems (Truthcoin, Augur v1) used automated bookmaking with creator-set initial prices, while modern systems like Polymarket use splitting to create shares, trade them on centralized limit order books and AMMs, and resolve markets through a layered oracle process (optimistic proposal, dispute, token vote). The paper reads this as convergence toward the 'Princeton DePM' design rather than the Truthcoin design, and supports the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the surveyed corpus — 97 projects from a community dashboard, 20+ historical systems, and the authors' own field knowledge — is complete enough that the seven-stage taxonomy and the convergence narrative capture the real design space; if a significant family of DePMs was missed, the framework and the 'Polymarket bucked the trend' story would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Comparison of DePMs becomes a stage-by-stage matching exercise; two systems that share several modules but differ in one are no longer seen as wholly different designs.
  • The convergence thesis predicts that new DePMs will adopt split-based issuance and CLOB/AMM trading, and that meaningful innovation will concentrate in market resolution and topic definition.
  • The paper's scoping rule — a system is a DePM if at least one operation is permissionless — means a platform like Polymarket counts even though topic creation and some trading are mediated.
  • The formal axioms give builders a checklist: maintain solvency, keep shares transferable and fungible, and ensure resolution transitions exactly once before payouts.
  • The research agenda directs attention to specific modules: better AMMs for bounded $0–$1 shares, incentive-compatible oracle votes, machine-checkable market predicates, and complete archival replay tools.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable corollary the paper leaves implicit: if the modular decomposition is right, survival and growth among DePMs should be driven mainly by the trading and resolution modules, since infrastructure and archiving are described as largely interchangeable.
  • The framework hints at a compliance-oriented design recipe: keep splitting/CLOB/AMM trading and optimistic resolution, but gate market topics through the user-interface layer; this may explain how a platform can operate in regulated jurisdictions and still be called decentralized.
  • The classification table could be turned into a dataset by mapping all 35+ listed DePMs onto the seven stages, enabling quantitative tests of which module choices correlate with volume, longevity, or manipulation incidents.
  • The Satoshi documentary case study points to a broader empirical program: measure how prices absorb true versus fake information across DePMs, which the paper names as a research need but does not itself carry out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This SoK paper surveys decentralized prediction markets (DePMs) from the 2013–2014 conceptual designs (Truthcoin and the 'Princeton DePM') through modern systems such as Polymarket, with a claimed corpus of over a hundred projects (35+ detailed in Appendix A). The paper's central contribution is a modular workflow that decomposes DePM design into seven stages: underlying infrastructure, market topic, share structure and pricing, trading, market resolution, settlement, and archiving. For each stage, the paper enumerates design variants and analyzes trade-offs regarding decentralization, expressiveness, and manipulation resistance. It also provides formal definitions of a market and a prediction-market system, with solvency/redemption axioms, a detailed case study of Polymarket's 2024 'HBO Satoshi' market, and a research agenda. The paper argues that Polymarket deviates from early designs and represents a convergence on splitting-based issuance plus CLOB/AMM trading.

Significance. The value of the paper lies in its synthesis: it provides a shared vocabulary and a structured comparison of a fragmented design space, and it documents historical lineage (e.g., AMMs originating from Gnosis research, MEV described in the Princeton DePM). The HBO Satoshi case study is a concrete illustration of cheap talk and market efficiency in a real DePM. The formal definitions and solvency axioms are a step toward rigor and correctly capture the standard WTA/YNB/scalar designs; the YNB-NR equivalence (Eqs. 5–6) is correct. The research agenda is realistic and well-targeted. If the framework is adopted, it could facilitate future comparison and theory. However, because the formal definitions exclude at least two system types the paper itself lists as DePMs (Reality Cards and self-settling markets), the completeness claim that the taxonomy covers the design space is not yet supported. The descriptive taxonomy is still useful without full formal coverage, but the paper should reconcile or bound its claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, §3.3, Appendix A] Definition 1 (Market) fixes each payoff function as R_j: Ω → R≥0, and Axiom 3 states that any holder of q units redeems for q·R_j(ω_M). Appendix A item 28 describes Reality Cards as a DePM whose "outcome shares are NFTs that can be rented with payouts based on how long a user held the winning NFT (time-weighted to compensate early traders more)." This payoff depends on holding duration (and potentially holder identity), not solely on the realized outcome, so it cannot be expressed through any R_j: Ω → R≥0. Section 3.3 notes that "more exotic structures are possible" but neither integrates this variant into the taxonomy nor flags it as a deliberate exclusion. As a result, the paper's formal foundation and its listed corpus are inconsistent, and the claimed complete seven-stage framework is not substantiated. The authors should either reclassify Reality Cards, generalize the payoff model,
  2. [§2.3, §3.5] Definition 2 requires the resolution register res_M to transition exactly once from ⊥ to some ω_M ∈ Ω_M. Section 3.5's "self-settling market" (based on Bentov et al.) explicitly allows a market to "not settle" if the outcome is contentious: it is redeemed by merging losing shares, with no register transition. This is a second listed design that falls outside the formal system. If the definitions are meant to cover all DePM designs, they must handle non-resolving markets (e.g., by adding an explicit permanent-⊥ state or a separate redemption mechanism).
  3. [§2.1, §4] The methodology is a convenience sample: it uses "our knowledge of the field, Google Scholar ... and citations within papers," plus 97 dashboard projects and 20+ historical systems. There is no reproducible search protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or validated completeness argument. Given the paper's goal of decomposing "the DePM design space" and enumerating design variants, this non-systematic basis is a load-bearing limitation. The paper should either report a systematic review process or explicitly scope the taxonomy to the surveyed systems and avoid claiming complete coverage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §1] The abstract in the submission header lists eight stages including "market initialization," while the full-text abstract and Section 3 list seven stages. Reconcile the number and list.
  2. [§2.3 vs. Appendix C] Definition 1 in §2.3 omits the outcome-distinguishability condition that is introduced in Appendix C's Definition 4. If this condition is intended, it should appear in the main definition; otherwise Appendix C should not present it as part of Definition 1.
  3. [§4, Table 3] Table 3's legend for the support symbols (fully/partially/not supported) is garbled and should be typeset properly.
  4. [§1, Appendix A] The sentence "distilled into the 35+ notable DePMs listed in Appendix A" is inaccurate because Appendix A includes several centralized systems (e.g., Bets of Bitcoin, BitBet, Predictious, Fairlay, BetMoose). Consider "notable systems."
  5. [§2.2] The definition of DePM as "if at least one is permissionless" is very permissive; a system that only allows permissionless withdrawals would qualify. This is a legitimate stipulation, but its consequences for the corpus should be acknowledged explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SoK's qualitative taxonomy and historical-convergence claims are grounded in external primary sources, not in fitted parameters, derived predictions, or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative predictions and fits no parameters; its central contribution is a modular taxonomy (Section 3) synthesized from a corpus of primary sources (Section 2.1). The seven/eight-stage decomposition is an organizational scheme rather than a derived quantity, so the 'prediction equals input' failure modes do not apply. The only author-overlapping citations ([16] Princeton DePM, [24] oracles SoK) are used as historical objects and as a methodological precedent ('modular workflow (cf. [24])'), not as the evidence for the paper's empirical claims; those claims rest on the cited project documentation (e.g., [60], [71], [57], [19]). Definitions 1-3 and Axioms 1-3 are explicit modeling assumptions rather than conclusions derived from the survey. Appendix A's inclusion of Reality Cards, whose time-weighted NFT payouts sit awkwardly with Axiom 3, is a potential internal-consistency/completeness issue (correctness risk), not a circular step; the paper itself acknowledges 'more exotic structures are possible' (§3.3), so the framework is presented as a taxonomy with residual cases rather than a closed derivation. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or fitted quantities appear because the paper is a qualitative review. The axioms above are the main unrecognized premises: representativeness of the sample, the chosen DePM threshold, and the seven-stage decomposition itself. The paper introduces no new physical or computational entities; terms like YNB and YNB-NR are classification labels, not entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The surveyed corpus (97 dashboard-listed projects, 20+ historical systems, plus authors' prior knowledge) is representative of the DePM design space.
    Section 2.1 describes the data collection. If the sample is incomplete or biased, the taxonomy and the convergence narrative may miss important designs.
  • domain assumption A system counts as a DePM if at least one core operation (topic creation, trading, closing, withdrawal) is permissionless.
    Section 2.2 explicitly defines DePM scope this way. This threshold determines which systems are included and shapes every comparative claim in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The design space is naturally decomposed into the seven listed stages: infrastructure, market topic, share structure and pricing, trading, market resolution, settlement, archiving.
    Section 3 introduces the modular workflow as the paper's organizing device. It is a framing choice, not derived from a theorem or dataset, and the abstract incorrectly says eight stages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Markets (DePMs)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXRBOLX2

@misc{pith2026251015612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Markets (DePMs)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXRBOLX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.15612}
}
read the original abstract

Decentralized prediction markets (DePMs) allow open participation in event-based wagering without fully relying on centralized intermediaries. We review the history of DePMs which date back to 2011 and includes hundreds of proposals. Perhaps surprising, modern DePMs like Polymarket deviate materially from earlier designs like Truthcoin and Augur v1. We use our review to present a modular workflow comprising eight stages: underlying infrastructure, market topic, share structure and pricing, market initialization, trading, market resolution, settlement, and archiving. For each module, we enumerate the design variants, analyzing trade-offs around decentralization, expressiveness, and manipulation resistance. We also identify open problems for researchers interested in this ecosystem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The price movements for 6 leading candidates in the Polymarket market for who would be named as Satoshi Nakamoto in the HBO documentary ‘Money Electric’ which aired the evening of October 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. OpenMarket: A Synchronized Polymarket-Binance Dataset for High-Frequency Prediction-Market Research

    q-fin.TR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    OpenMarket releases the first public millisecond-level Polymarket–Binance paired corpus and shows that a multivariate walk-forward model does not beat the market's own mid out-of-sample.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    here’s how the winner gets decided

    Adelman, J.: A disputed election would mean long delays in betting market pay- outs. here’s how the winner gets decided. Barron’s (31 Oct 2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Science320(5878) (2008)

    Arrow, K.J., Forsythe, R., Gorham, M., Hahn, R., Hanson, R., Ledyard, J.O., Levmore, S., Litan, R., Milgrom, P., Nelson, F.D., Neumann, G.R., Ottaviani, M., Schelling, T.C., Shiller, R.J., Smith, V.L., Snowberg, E., Sunstein, C.R., Tetlock, P.C., Tetlock, P.E., Varian, H.R., Wolfers, J., Zitzewitz, E.: The promise of pre- diction markets. Science320(5878) (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Scaling augur part 2, a roadmap (2015),https://augur.mystrikingly.com/blog/ scaling-augur-part-2-a-roadmap

    2015

  4. [4]

    Augur turbo,https://github.com/AugurProject/turbo

  5. [5]

    Back, A., Corallo, M., Dashjr, L., Friedenbach, M., Maxwell, G., Miller, A., Poel- stra, A., Timón, J., Wuille, P.: Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains. Tech. rep., Blockstream (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    In: DeFi Summit London (2019)

    Barnes, G.: Gnosis: How to build a regulated prediction market (talk). In: DeFi Summit London (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Fast Company (3 Oct 2024)

    Becker, S.: Hbo bitcoin doc ‘money electric’ hunts for satoshi nakamoto— see a first look at the trailer. Fast Company (3 Oct 2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    decrypt.co (7 Oct 2024)

    Beganski, A.: Crypto betting has turned hbo’s satoshi nakamoto reveal into a ’sporting event’: Director. decrypt.co (7 Oct 2024)

    2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops

    Bentov, I., Mizrahi, A., Rosenfeld, M.: Decentralized prediction market without arbiters. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops. pp. 199–217 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Breidenbach, L., Cachin, C., Coventry, A., Juels, A., Miller, A.: Chainlink off-chain reporting protocol.https://blog.chain.link/ off-chain-reporting-live-on-mainnet/(2021), accessed: 2025-06-24

    2021

  3. [11]

    The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(4), 1547–1621 (2015) SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Markets (DePMs) 21

    Budish, E., Cramton, P., Shim, J.: The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(4), 1547–1621 (2015) SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Markets (DePMs) 21

    2015

  4. [12]

    Buterin, V.: Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized ap- plication platform. Tech. rep., Ethereum Foundation (2013),https://ethereum. org/whitepaper/

    2013

  5. [13]

    LangChain Blog (2024),https://blog.langchain.com/ how-chaos-labs-built-a-multi-agent-system-for-resolution-in-prediction-markets/

    How chaos labs built a multi-agent system for resolution in predic- tion markets. LangChain Blog (2024),https://blog.langchain.com/ how-chaos-labs-built-a-multi-agent-system-for-resolution-in-prediction-markets/

    2024

  6. [14]

    The New Yorker (23 Oct 2024)

    Chayka, K.: The crypto betting platform predicting a trump win. The New Yorker (23 Oct 2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Clack, C.D.: Languages for smart and computable contracts. Tech. rep., Centre for Blockchain Technologies, UCL (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    In: WEIS

    Clark, J., Bonneau, J., Felten, E.W., Kroll, J.A., Miller, A., Narayanan, A.: On decentralizing prediction markets and order books. In: WEIS. vol. 188 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the 33rd European Modeling & Simulation Symposium (EMSS 2021) (2021)

    Cliff, D., Hawkins, J., Keen, J.E., Lau-Soto, R.: Implementing the BBE agent- based model of a sports-betting exchange. In: Proceedings of the 33rd European Modeling & Simulation Symposium (EMSS 2021) (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Econometrica: Jour- nal of the Econometric Society pp

    Crawford, V.P., Sobel, J.: Strategic information transmission. Econometrica: Jour- nal of the Econometric Society pp. 1431–1451 (1982)

    1982

  11. [19]

    Conditional tokens contracts,https://conditional-tokens.readthedocs.io/ en/latest/index.html#

  12. [20]

    In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2020)

    Daian, P., Goldfeder, S., Kell, T., Li, Y., Zhao, X., Bentov, I., Breidenbach, L., Juels, A.: Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner ex- tractable value, and consensus instability. In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Washington University Law Review97, 575 (2019)

    Dubin, J.D.: Blockchain prediction markets: Where they came from, why they matter & how to regulate those involved. Washington University Law Review97, 575 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    dxDAO: Omen prediction market documentation.https://dxdocs.eth.limo/ docs/Products/omen/(unknown), accessed: 2025-09-07

    2025

  15. [23]

    In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops

    Eskandari, S., Clark, J., Sundaresan, V., Adham, M.: On the feasibility of decen- tralized derivatives markets. In: Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2017 International Workshops. pp. 553–567 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies

    Eskandari, S., Salehi, M., Gu, W.C., Clark, J.: Sok: Oracles from the ground truth to market manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. pp. 127–141 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Fairlay prediction market,https://github.com/fairlay

  18. [26]

    Ford, B., Böhme, R.: Rationality is self-defeating in permissionless systems (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Innovations inTheoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS) (2024)

    Frongillo, R., Papireddygari, M., Waggoner, B.: An axiomatic characterization of cfmms andequivalence toprediction markets. Innovations inTheoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS) (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    The Washington Post (2024)

    Funt, D.: He hit three monster bets — and then the sportsbook wouldn’t pay. The Washington Post (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Cryptology ePrint Archive (2023)

    Glaeser, N., Seres, I.A., Zhu, M., Bonneau, J.: Cicada: A framework for private non-interactive on-chain auctions and voting. Cryptology ePrint Archive (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Gnosis: Gnosis whitepaper.https://www.allcryptowhitepapers.com/ wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Gnosis.pdf(2017), accessed: 2025-06-01

    2018

  23. [31]

    The ethereum gas stations network,https://github.com/opengsn/gsn

  24. [32]

    X.com (2024),https://x.com/jillrgunter/ status/1854083649031086147

    Gunter, J.: Post from @jillrgunter. X.com (2024),https://x.com/jillrgunter/ status/1854083649031086147

    2024

  25. [33]

    Information Systems Fron- tiers5, 107–119 (2003) 22 Nahid Rahman, Joseph Al-Chami, and Jeremy Clark

    Hanson, R.: Combinatorial information market design. Information Systems Fron- tiers5, 107–119 (2003) 22 Nahid Rahman, Joseph Al-Chami, and Jeremy Clark

    2003

  26. [34]

    Hanson, R.: Insider trading and prediction markets. JL Econ. & Pol’y4, 449 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    The Journal of Prediction Markets1(1), 3–15 (2007)

    Hanson, R.: Logarithmic markets coring rules for modular combinatorial informa- tion aggregation. The Journal of Prediction Markets1(1), 3–15 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Iowa electronic markets,https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/about-iem/

  29. [37]

    Intrade: How does it work?,https://web.archive.org/web/20100502022133/ http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/help/howitworks.html

  30. [38]

    In: USENIX Security (2018)

    Kalodner, H., Goldfeder, S., Chen, X., Weinberg, S.M., Felten, E.W.: Arbitrum: Scalable, private smart contracts. In: USENIX Security (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Kalshi: Market rules,https://help.kalshi.com/markets/markets-101/ market-rules

  32. [40]

    Kalshi: Kalshi api documentation.https://docs.kalshi.com/welcome(un- known), accessed: 2025-09-08

    2025

  33. [41]

    Kanani, J., Nailwal, S., Arjun, A.: Matic whitepaper. Tech. rep., Polygon Technol- ogy (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Master’s thesis, Distributed Computing Group Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zürich (2023)

    Kapp-Schwoerer, L.: Improved Liquidity for Prediction Markets. Master’s thesis, Distributed Computing Group Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zürich (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Cryptoeconomic Systems (2021)

    Klages-Mundt, A., Minca, A.: (in) stability for the blockchain: Deleveraging spirals and stablecoin attacks. Cryptoeconomic Systems (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Journal of mathematical Economics44(7-8), 733–744 (2008)

    Koessler, F., Noussair, C., Ziegelmeyer, A.: Parimutuel betting under asymmetric information. Journal of mathematical Economics44(7-8), 733–744 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Lesaege, C., George, W., Ast, F.: Kleros: Long paper (v2.0.2). Tech. rep., Self- published (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    IEEE Network (2024)

    Lin, Z., Wang, T., Shi, L., Zhang, S., Cao, B.: Decentralized physical infrastructure networks (depin): Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Network (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    In: International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications

    Loporchio, M., Di Francesco Maesa, D., Bernasconi, A., Ricci, L.: Analyzing erc- 1155 adoption: A study of the multi-token ecosystem. In: International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications. pp. 385–397. Springer (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Lu, A.: Building a decentralized exchange in ethereum (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Georgetown Law Technology Review8, 384 (2024)

    Mattmuller, K.: Decentralized prediction markets. Georgetown Law Technology Review8, 384 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    McClusky, P.: Automated market maker for certain intrade contracts (2008), https://www.bayesianinvestor.com/amm/

    2008

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07558 (2025)

    Milionis, J., Ernstberger, J., Bonneau, J., Kominers, S.D., Roughgarden, T.: Incentive-compatible recovery from manipulated signals, with applications to de- centralized physical infrastructure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07558 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM CCS Workshop on Decentralized Finance and Security

    Milionis, J., Moallemi, C.C., Roughgarden, T., Zhang, A.L.: Quantifying loss in automated market makers. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM CCS Workshop on Decentralized Finance and Security. pp. 71–74 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Moallemi, C., Robinson, D.: pm-amm: A uniform amm for prediction markets (2024),pm-AMM:AUniformAMMforPredictionMarkets

    2024

  46. [54]

    In: FC Workshops (WTSC) (2023)

    Moosavi, M., Clark, J.: Lissy: Experimenting with on-chain order books. In: FC Workshops (WTSC) (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Optimisim docs,https://docs.optimism.io

  48. [56]

    In: International Conference onFinancial Cryptography and Data Security

    Ovezik, C., Karakostas, D., Kiayias, A.: Sok: A stratified approach to blockchain decentralization. In: International Conference onFinancial Cryptography and Data Security. pp. 128–155. Springer (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Peterson, J., Krug, J.: Augur: a decentralized, open-source platform for prediction markets. Tech. rep., Self-published (2015),www.augur.net SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Markets (DePMs) 23

    2015

  50. [58]

    Peterson, J., Krug, J., Zoltu, M., Williams, A.K., Alexander, S.: Augur: a decen- tralized oracle and prediction market platform (v2. 0). Whitepaper, https://augur. net/whitepaper. pdf (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    plotx: Github profile: plotx.https://github.com/plotx(unknown), accessed: 2025-09-08

    2025

  52. [60]

    Polymarket documentation,https://docs.polymarket.com

  53. [61]

    PR Newswire (2025)

    Polymarket partners with chainlink to enhance accuracy of prediction market res- olutions. PR Newswire (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    org/support/faq(unknown), accessed: 2025-09-08

    PredictIt FAQ: Predictit frequently asked questions.https://www.predictit. org/support/faq(unknown), accessed: 2025-09-08

    2025

  55. [63]

    science306(5695), 462–466 (2004)

    Prelec, D.: A bayesian truth serum for subjective data. science306(5695), 462–466 (2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    CoinDesk (2025)

    Reynolds, S.: A contentious ukraine bet leads to clash between polymarket, uma communities. CoinDesk (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    CoinDesk (27 Jun 2024)

    Reynolds, S.: Update: Polymarket says it’s ’conclusive’ barron trump was involved in $djt. CoinDesk (27 Jun 2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Adavances in Financial Technology (2025)

    Saguillo, O., Ghafouri, V., Kiffer, L., Suarez-Tangil, G.: Unravelling the proba- bilistic forest: Arbitrage in prediction markets. Adavances in Financial Technology (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Saleh, F.: Prediction markets directory,https://frontseat.co/ prediction-markets

  60. [68]

    In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

    Srinivasan, S., Karger, E., Chen, Y.: Self-resolving prediction markets for unveri- fiable outcomes. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. pp. 547–573 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Sx network docs,https://docs.sx.technology

  62. [70]

    Sztorc, P.: Truthcoin: Faq (2014),http://truthcoin.info/faq/

    2014

  63. [71]

    Sztorc, P.: Truthcoin: Trustless, decentralized, censorship-proof, incentive- compatible, scalable bitcoin prediction marketplace (v1.1). Tech. rep., Self- published (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Journal of Economic perspectives2(2), 161–174 (1988)

    Thaler, R.H., Ziemba, W.T.: Anomalies: Parimutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. Journal of Economic perspectives2(2), 161–174 (1988)

    1988

  65. [73]

    Thales markets documentation,https://docs.thalesmarket.io/

  66. [74]

    In: International Conference on Advanced Informa- tion Networking and Applications

    Uedan, H., Li, Y., Sakiyama, K., Miyahara, D.: Parimutuel betting on blockchain: A case study on horse racing. In: International Conference on Advanced Informa- tion Networking and Applications. pp. 177–187. Springer (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Uma data verification mechanism: Adding economic guarantees to blockchain oracles (2020),https://github.com/UMAprotocol/whitepaper/blob/master/ UMA-DVM-oracle-whitepaper.pdf

    2020

  68. [76]

    In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies

    Werner, S., Perez, D., Gudgeon, L., Klages-Mundt, A., Harz, D., Knottenbelt, W.: Sok: Decentralized finance (defi). In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. pp. 30–46 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Works in Progress15(2024)

    Whitaker, N., Mazlish, J.Z.: Why prediction markets aren’t popular. Works in Progress15(2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Wolfers, J., Zitzewitz, E.: Interpreting prediction market prices as probabilities. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research (2006)

    2006

  71. [79]

    New York Times (26 Oct 2024)

    Yaffe-Bellany, D., Griffith, E.: Betting on the election and on the economy. New York Times (26 Oct 2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Yakovenko, A.: Solana: A new architecture for a high performance blockchain v0. 8.13. Tech. rep., Self-published (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    Zeitgeist documentation,https://docs.zeitgeist.pm 24 Nahid Rahman, Joseph Al-Chami, and Jeremy Clark

  74. [82]

    Zintus-art, K., Vass, B., Ward, J.: Empirical evidence in ai oracle development. Tech. rep., Chainlink (2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

    Hal is named and it is raining

    Zou, W., Geng, R., Wang, B., Jia, J.:{PoisonedRAG}: Knowledge corruption attacks to{Retrieval-Augmented}generation of large language models. In: 34th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 25). pp. 3827–3844 (2025) SoK: Market Microstructure for Decentralized Prediction Ma...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.