Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.15373

Resolution Is Not Settlement, Part II: Protocol Finality and Observed Redemption on Polymarket

Maksym Nechepurenko
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An Oracle result is not yet a protocol payout, a redeemable position is not yet collateral in a holder's account, and a redemption event is not a complete measure of economic entitlement. This companion paper develops an event-sourced framework for Polymarket conditions from preparation through protocol finality and observed holder realization. The empirical design uses three Conditional Tokens Framework event families derived from a pinned contract application binary interface (ABI): ConditionPreparation, ConditionResolution, and PayoutRedemption. It separates the contract-wide acquisition universe from the frozen Polymarket adapter-question cohort. The exact bridge contains 108,638 linked conditions. Of these, 99,283 have an observed protocol-resolution event by the fixed snapshot at Polygon block 90,114,204 (2026-07-12T17:11:41Z). Among resolved exact-linked conditions, 92,158 have an observed redemption of any amount and 91,817 have an observed positive-payout redemption; condition-specific Kaplan-Meier medians from first protocol resolution are 182 and 200 seconds respectively. The exact-linked payout taxonomy contains 53,847 canonical (0,1) vectors, 45,024 canonical (1,0) vectors, 410 fifty-fifty vectors, two other valid vectors, and 9,355 conditions with no observed resolution. Cross-contract Oracle-adapter-protocol ordering is reported conservatively: 823 conditions have an interval-qualified terminal generation, 48 have multiple candidate generations, 91,638 have no compatible terminal generation in the frozen evidence, and 16,129 are right-censored or otherwise unevaluable. The formal results show that Oracle finality does not identify protocol finality, protocol finality does not identify holder realization, and redemption events alone do not identify the fraction of entitlement redeemed without an independent balance-consistent entitlement denominator.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maksym Nechepurenko. 2026-09-14. Resolution Is Not Settlement, Part II: Protocol Finality and Observed Redemption on Polymarket. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.15373

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering

Two MEV builders now produce nearly 80\% of Ethereum blocks. Block builders have the ability to reorder transactions on the blockchain in a way that can be harmful to participants. We estimate participants would pay in the aggregate nearly \$7.2 million per month to guarantee that they remained in the first quartile of the block. Sandwich attacks, in which a transaction is front run, are frequent, averaging more than one every two blocks. Gas fees on these transactions pay for nearly 9.6\% of the MEV payments to the validator. Reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools might be helpful.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Computable Countermarkets and the Limits of Universal Trading

We explain why no trading algorithm can guarantee profit in every market. For each deterministic program that always returns a finite-precision position, we construct a fixed, algorithmically generated price path on which every active position loses and inactivity earns nothing. This holds with positive, continually changing prices, costless trading, and unlimited computation time. Separate arguments limit learning market rules, certifying future events, and establishing randomness from finite data. Useful strategies may exploit market structure, information, or compensation for risk, while benchmark performance need not imply profit. Reversing and rearranging price histories within the assumed market class provide practical stress tests, distinguishing conditional success from universal guarantees.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Adapting the Actor Model of Concurrency for High-Frequency Trading: Synchronous Message Delivery (fast_send) and a Tick-to-Book Latency Study

The actor model - state isolation, data-race freedom, deadlock resistance, and sequential single-message reasoning - has long been dismissed as unsuitable for high-frequency trading (HFT): actors seem to imply many threads, a mailbox per actor, and a heap-allocated message plus a context switch per interaction, overhead incompatible with a microsecond budget. This paper argues the dismissal is wrong for co-located actors, and supports it both analytically and with a deployed, measured implementation: kaspar-hft, an open-source C++20 framework. Four extensions adapt the model for HFT: fast_send, a synchronous delivery mechanism in which the sending thread runs the receiver's handler inline and returns the reply as a value; actor groups, which co-schedule actors on one thread behind a shared mailbox; per-actor selectable mailbox queues; and a memory pool. fast_send has receiver transparency: the handler cannot tell whether delivery was synchronous or asynchronous, or which thread runs it. A grouped synchronous chain runs on one thread, cutting scheduler context switches from O(N) to O(1), and a thread-local call-chain test catches cyclic invocation before any lock is taken. Microbenchmarks put the synchronous round trip at tens of nanoseconds. On a live CME market-data feed (ES, NQ, ZN futures), socket-to-book latency decomposes into a ~7 microsecond decode-and-book floor plus a per-message slope; the framework's own contribution is under 1% of the floor. The tail is set not by the actor machinery but by the market's non-Poisson, clustered arrival process, characterized in a companion paper. The shared-queue group also yields a production/simulation duality: the same actor code runs unchanged in live trading and deterministic backtest.

q-fin.TR↗