hh
MetaMask just turned 10 years old. 🦊
To celebrate, we made you a little something:
ten.metamask.io?utm_source=t…
支持平台多收费!
Polymarket目前手续费体系优缺点分析:
(一)优点
1. 平台端价值
构建可持续营收模型:从零费用阶段跨入稳定盈利期,到现在已经稳定每日收入1M美元以上,年化营收达到数亿美元级别,摆脱纯烧钱的增长模式。
优化市场整体质量:通过收费过滤无意义的高频刷量、洗盘交易和延迟套利行为,减少无效订单对订单簿的干扰,提升市场定价的真实有效性。
形成正向增长循环:手续费反哺做市返佣→吸引专业流动性提供者入场→买卖价差收窄、订单深度提升→吸引更多普通交易者→交易量与手续费收入同步增长。
2. 专业做市商(Maker)端价值
稳定收益渠道:做市方可通过挂单同时赚取买卖价差 + 返佣双重收益,形成类似传统金融做市商的稳定盈利模式,不再完全依赖价格预测获利。
零成本做市:Maker 全程零手续费,仅承担价格波动风险,资金使用效率高。
精细化收益优化:按单市场独立结算返佣,做市策略可针对性布局高费率、高活跃度市场,灵活调整收益结构。
3. 交易者(Taker)端价值
高等级用户成本大幅降低:头部大户最高可获得 50% 手续费返还,叠加流动性改善带来的滑点下降,综合交易成本甚至可能低于零费用时期。
执行质量显著提升:做市激励带动订单簿深度加厚、买卖价差收窄,大额交易的滑点成本明显下降,价差改善通常可以覆盖大部分手续费支出。
差异化定价更友好:地缘政治等公共属性强的市场完全免费,政治、金融等核心主流市场费率更低,兼顾普惠性与平台调性。
成本逻辑更合理:费用与市场不确定性正相关,50/50 高不确定性市场流动性价值最高,对应收费更高;极端概率市场流动性需求低,费用近乎为零,定价与用户价值高度匹配。
4. 生态层面价值
对标成熟金融市场:采用传统金融长期验证的 Maker-Taker 模型,符合专业机构的交易习惯,降低机构用户接入门槛,推动预测市场向专业化发展。
抽水水平远低于竞品:峰值有效费率不足 2%,相较传统博彩 5%-10% 的抽水优势显著,长期仍具备极强的价格竞争力。
费用回流生态:平台仅截留 75%-85% 的手续费,剩余部分通过返佣回流交易生态,而非全部留存,兼顾营收与生态激励平衡。
0xJoy retweeted
Pudgy Penguins are taking over Japan.
Join the Huddle from July 12–15 as we co-host a series of community events with @AvaxTeam1 during WebX Tokyo.
More details and RSVP information below.
polymarket居然在世界杯期间,推出预测市场,真是对polyon这条性能羸弱的公链一无所知。polyon卡炸了
polymarket.com/perps?c=00497…
#polymarket
0xJoy retweeted
Over the past few years, Pudgy Penguins has rapidly expanded its retail footprint.
Through major retailers globally, Pudgy Penguins has already reached 10,000+ stores and hundreds of millions of people.
Here are some highlights from that journey 🧵
Rationalists, Aliens, and Loss
This'll be a very long and meandering (and, frankly, skippable!) post about a strange week I had in mid-June.
That week started on a humid Monday in Cherry Grove South Carolina with tremendous grief at suddenly losing my dog...and ended on a sunny coolish Sunday in Berkeley California, at the Manifest rationalist conference, making $325k of side bets on strange lifeforms, both of the extraterrestrial variety and the Kamala variety.
My birthday was squeezed in between, where I went to see Disclosure Day (rating: even more skippable than this post).
--
We'll start with Manifest, and for relevant color from an actual journalist: @jcbeam at Bloomberg has written a readable dispatch from this year's iteration bloomberg.com/news/features/….
Manifest has become the de facto prediction market conference, because it existed as a place to discuss/promote prediction markets before they became ubiquitous (the organization which runs Manifest also has a play-money/user-created/very fun prediction market called Manifold, which hosts various markets on what will happen during the weekend). And so the conference definitely WAS a lot of what I do for a living (trade prediction markets), both in terms of attendees and also sessions. And my favorite moments were meeting other traders for the first time and talking odds. When we wildly differed, it made for good discussion!
But Manifest was also a lot of another thing: rationalists or "rats" (their term). The conference takes place in a literal walled-off compound, a former hotel, called Lighthaven. Rationalists are a bit controversial! I did see a protester stationed outside of Lighthaven, although his pet cause seemed to be something to do with testicles that I didn't quite grasp. But given the possibility of (more relevant) protests, there was a security guard to prevent people who didn't belong from getting in. Having now attended, I'd politely suggest there should be a second security guard to keep some of these people and ideas from subsequently getting out.
I started the weekend asking a rationalist what "rationalists" means, and I was basically told, in a serious manner, that it is someone who interacts with a lot of blogs. Which I thought was a haha-funny joke, but it turns out this is the definitive description: the Wikipedia article says it is a "21st-century movement that formed around a group of internet blogs, primarily LessWrong and Astral Codex Ten." This definition was further reinforced by witnessing interactions where rationalists referenced individual blog posts by their title, and the room largely nodded along knowing exactly what that blog post contained. Felt quasi-religious.
Aside from prediction markets, the biggest topic of conversation at Manifest is easily AI safety (and this cause has become closely affiliated with the rationalist community). With the Trump-mandated Fable 5 shutdown being the breaking news on the opening Friday night (with multiple rationalist-adjacent Anthropic employees in the building when the order came down!), AI safety overtook prediction markets as the dominant discussion topic.
And tbh, I didn't mind this much! Because I have very, very strong views that AI is not going to kill humanity. And this belief is a minority view at the conference, so that's kinda wild and interesting, right? The more popular view was that humanity will be "paper clipped" by artificial superintelligence. Made for good conversation! Nerdy and apocalyptic conversation.
The conference also had varying levels of discussion - both formal sessions and informal debates/lectures - around topics like...animal welfare, effective altruism, expanding the rationalist movement, and...polyamorous relationships.
When I described to a family member what Manifest was before I went, I said "It's a conference of mostly prediction markets and AI safety with...(switching to a whisper)...an undercurrent of debauchery." And I'd say that ended up being my experience. The sensualityness of it all was not in-your-face, but as the day wore on, the tension was bubbling up. I believe each year they have a Manifold market on whether there'll be an orgy, and it's won at least once!
And the star of that strain of the conference is definitely Aella, a sex worker turned Internet celebrity. I attended one of her sessions, and I half-expect to see what I witnessed in a future documentary...something in the vein of "Wild Wild Country" (rating: must-watch!). The enraptured audience watched intensely as Aella orchestrated - like some sexual maestro - a succession of awkward men approaching women. The women appeared to be Aella acolytes. Aella would often intervene and physically move the appendages of the men and women around like dolls. She gave suggestions on what to say, where to stand, and what to think about. It was equal parts awkward, odd, and grandiose. It was all very guru-coded. It was the furthest thing from rational blogging that I saw that weekend. (I'm sure I'll be tut-tutted that this was actually science-based, but skepticism is warranted).
Which is not to say that any of the events that weekend came across with bad intentions in mind. By and large, everyone was well-meaning and highly open and seemed to be enjoying themselves (the only topic that I broached that seemed to be taboo was questioning the rationalist movement itself, which was kind of just widely held to be virtuous).
Overall, the participants all seemed to be in various stages of contentment that they had made a great decision in attending this event. Some that seemed very socially awkward seemed like they took a lot of meaning from attending. In finding a group that fit their interests and beliefs. That was really cool to see! And I understood the quiet power of finding an "in-group" in those moments. A sense of belonging for people that may not get that elsewhere.
But...but...as a first-time observer, and as a naturally curious person, I tried to feel around to the outer edges of the rationalist community and go to as many open-ended and "controversial" events as possible. And I have to say that the flip side of an in-group, the echo chamber, also became very obvious, very quickly.
I'm a smart person. I'm an educated person. But part of being a really good prediction market trader is realizing that as smart as you are as an individual, you do not have it all figured out or anywhere close. If you put your intelligence on a pedestal, the uninvited guest hubris will crash that party with a quickness. Or another way to put it: superforecasters are not really a thing. To the extent there are superforecasters out there, their superpower is being a little better than average at forecasting. But humanity is very bad at forecasting! So the superpower is...you're still kinda bad, but you are slightly less bad.
Any lessons on hubris or humility seemed a bit over the head of many of the attendees at the event, who seemed to view the people inside these walls as the smart crowd. That they were productively moving the ball forward, maybe even solving, many of humanity's problems. And the hard thing for them to figure out was how to IMPLEMENT all of these things. And, to be clear, this is very well-meaning. But it is also paternalistic. And beyond paternalistic, it is absurdly unrealistic. The sense I got was that this was a group of people in various stages of arrested development, with sometimes very low introspection. Sort of like an adult kickball league, except it was adult model UN/debate club. And instead of kickball being a way to wind down, their leisure activity is the most meaningful thing they have going.
And being a little delusional isn't necessarily a bad thing. What struck me as a bad thing was that some of their beliefs are downright scary. Ideas that we have tried already, and as a society decided this was a terrible idea.
I went to a session on creating "Superbabies", or -- to use the loaded historical term -- eugenics. It was beyond merely controlling for disease (this is great!), it was talking about maximizing IQ and other "good" traits like bravery. The room (and even talking to people later who were not in the room) seemed overwhelmingly sympathetic to this being a good idea.
And look, I'm not a woke person...but I was in a bit of shock that this very white, very intelligent, very high-earning cohort of individuals were discussing such a history-loaded and racially-loaded idea so cavalierly. The word paternalistic again pops into my head as the best way to describe this.
The worst event of the weekend bears mentioning, although I don't want to dwell on it, because I don't think it represented people there. I should also caveat that this was at a session titled "Share your most politically incorrect belief (nothing leaves the room)." I definitely made a social promise when I stepped into that room to not let anything leave. But I feel like the seriousness of what I heard overrides that promise, especially because of the connection to the eugenics bit. A youngish white person who a few hours earlier had been a vociferous audience supporter of eugenics at the Superbabies session decided that their most politically incorrect belief was that we should be able to say the n-word (at which point the word was yelled out). Further, that it was cowardly not to use the word.
Personally, I love controversial ideas and against-consensus discussions. But I've studied enough history to know that this word harkens back to one of the darkest times in all of our species history, enslavement and wanton violence. As a society, we have correctly and collectively decided to excise this word the hell out of existence. The idea that some flippant, ignorant dipshit wants to wheel it out as a hyper-libertarian "gotcha" at a conference like this, and did so hours after expressing that he wants "high IQ" babies like himself is all sorts of wrong.
Again...I don't want to dwell on this. I'll just say that there was an exchange between Phil Donahue and Milton Friedman that must be almost 50 years old at this point. I saw it on Youtube like 20 years ago. And they were discussing the merits of capitalism vs socialism, etc., a long-running debate. And Friedman said at some point, rhetorically, "Where in the world are we going to find these angels who are going to organize society for us?" At this conference, there were smart, funny, kind people, but they were also...just people. And I felt that key parts of this group, speaking generally and not specifically, seemed blinded to their own paternalistic attitudes, and were totally losing the plot on some topics. I felt compelled to write about this for anyone considering going to this event in the future. This was just my experience! And ymmv.
--
But to end the Manifest chapter on a better note, because I did have a good time: there's tons of people there with a betting mindset. And those are my people, so naturally I made some bets.
One is with @CodyZervas -- who expressed that he thought the UAPs "Unidentified anomalous phenomena" or more colloquially UFOs may be alien in origin. He also said he had made various side bets with people to where he would win $200k if it was proven to be aliens.
To the dismay of my AI agent, who thought the odds were terrible, and purely because of my love of round numbers, I decided to throw my $300k into the mix (bringing him to half a million in potential winnings) in exchange for $3k -- 4 years from now.
So either we'll have proof that we're not alone in the universe by the year 2030, or I'll be $3k richer. This is a win-win! The agent is the idiot!
And the other bet was with @aokadam who expressed that Kamala Harris stood a chance in the 2028 Dem primary. She does not. He also expressed skepticism around betting at all on 2028 right now, because it's so far away.
At this point I had to intercede, and I offered him my $25k to his $1k on Kamala. $1k will be his price to learn that Kamala is a below average politician who ain't winning any primaries anymore, AND he's now betting on something he said we shouldn't be betting on yet.
Unfortunately, as I am typing this, I now realize these events may be correlated, to my detriment. Kamala winning the nomination could indicate that virtually every other Democrat has been wiped out by aliens, and I lose both bets in one fell swoop.
--
Finally, to wrap this meandering post up, I want to eulogize one of my very best friends in my life, my dog Chester, who just a few days prior to this crazy Manifest weekend had passed away.
I met Chester in 2017, a timid and nervous dog (pictured below trading PredictIt with me). And we spent most of every non-travel day together ever since, both of us changing and growing. I had a dog as a child, and I guess I never really internalized what the personality of a dog was or could be other than "I'm a dog." When I expanded to two and then three dogs a few years after Chester, the differences in personality became READILY apparent.
And Chester's true personality was this: loyal companion, a natural leader, and totally fearless while also endlessly kind (pictured below after conquering a mountain). He died at the ripe age of 16, but he was so puppy-like in both appearance and countenance that it seemed like he would live until 20. An emergency room visit on a Saturday morning for not eating turned into a diagnosis of multiple cancers by the afternoon. And so on Sunday, I drove my boy out to the beach. He'd never walked in the ocean before, and the ocean is so calming and important to me personally that I had to do it. I thought he might've hated it, but he let the waves lap up against his paws with pleasure. He went to sleep the next day in my arms, and it's still hard to process that.
I never thought I would get a tattoo; I'm not that type of person, and maybe not even cool enough for one. But I'm going to get a Chester tattoo, so he's always close to me.
I have a death zero philosophy on my life. My kids (if they avoid getting "paper clipped") will be cut off from non-loans by 18. Maybe 19 if I like them. I don't believe in dynastic money or intergenerational wealth, and it'll all be given away.
So, if I do ever make a very large amount of money, spoiler alert: there's going to be a very large dog shelter built with it for other Chesters out there.






















