Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.29578

What Prediction-Market Contracts Reveal at Launch: Trading Volume and Dispute Risk

Abstract

Using a near-census of 802,863 resolved markets listed on Polymarket between January 2023 and May 2026, and only information available at listing (the market's title and description, named resolution source, and contract metadata), we predict lifetime trading volume and whether settlement is later disputed. Contract information predicts trading volume well (out-of-sample $R^2 = 0.747$ for log volume), and most of the signal is interpretable: market topic provides the largest gain ($+0.289$ $R^2$ over a $0.220$ contract-feature baseline), wording and resolution-rule design add smaller but measurable improvements ($+0.027$ combined), and neural text models add little beyond the interpretable features. This performance does not survive a period of platform change coinciding with a shift in listing formats: accuracy in predicting whether a market reaches \$1,000 falls from AUC $0.940$ under same-period evaluation to $0.577$ when training on past quarters and testing on later ones. The loss concentrates in markets whose question forms were absent from training (76.9% of test markets; on familiar forms the model still reaches $0.778$), and a decomposition attributes more of it to a changed relationship between contract characteristics and demand than to an outdated mapping from text to features. Dispute predictors are more stable but less precise: launch-time features rank dispute risk far better than chance (AUC $0.78$), yet at a 0.31% base rate precision is too low for case-by-case prediction (average precision $0.012$), so the scores suit ranking groups of markets rather than forecasting individual disputes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ahmed Mahrous, Roberto Di Pietro. 2026-10-21. What Prediction-Market Contracts Reveal at Launch: Trading Volume and Dispute Risk. https://doi.org/10.1145/3858063.3858742

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Fast Approximate Modular Inference for Option Price Prediction

A new approximate Bayesian inferential framework is proposed that exploits multiple information sources -- daily spot returns, high-frequency spot data and option prices -- and enables fast calculation of probabilistic predictions of future option prices. This approach operates directly from the theoretical option pricing model, and does not require an explicit statistical model, or likelihood, for the observed option prices. We demonstrate that our approach achieves predictive accuracy comparable to likelihood-based modular inference, despite not explicitly modelling option-pricing errors, while delivering substantial computational gains. Predictive accuracy based on the Heston option pricing model is illustrated empirically for short-maturity options, with the rapidity of real-time updates of the predictive distributions highlighted.

q-fin.ST↗

Market Efficiency in a Changing Asset Population: Mobility, Entry, and Survival over Cryptocurrency's Full History

Weak-form efficiency implies symmetry restrictions on the Markov chain governing movement across the cryptocurrency capitalisation distribution. We test them on the full listed population: 8,970 assets, 690 weekly cross-sections, 2013 to 2026, with entry, exit and survival observed rather than inferred. Symmetry is rejected in every era, but the asymmetry falls by seventy percent, and what converged is entry-driven compositional churn rather than coins' own valuations. The bottom decile earns 27.5% per week on paper and nothing among assets that trade, on capacity of $293,000. Compensation for neglect exists precisely where trading does not.

q-fin.ST↗

Conflicting History in Foundation Model Return Forecasts

Older observations can help a forecaster learn a predictive relationship while becoming misleading when that relationship changes. We study this tension using paired return histories that differ in older observations but share recent returns and the conditional distribution of the next return. Across five foundation-model forecasting procedures and three simulated processes, each evaluated on 1,024 independent replications, conflicting history reduces the probability of improving on zero in all 30 higher-signal comparisons. This loss of usefulness occurs despite successful signal recovery under stable conditions. A separate exploratory comparison on 56 assets finds that shortening inputs from 256 to 64 returns increases mean absolute error for every model by 1.77-4.58 basis points; neither length improves observed overall error over zero. The evidence distinguishes the ability to extract a signal from the ability to withstand conflicting history, while showing why context sensitivity alone does not justify discarding older data.

q-fin.ST↗