Chandler De Kock

Your biggest competitor isn't another app. It's geography. Your users are spread across ecosystems, and so is their liquidity. Yet most apps are still confined to a single chain. It's time to expand beyond your chain, with Avail. https://t.co/oTdQMhnipm

"9 people can control enough voting power on UMA to actually decide the outcome — which is not quite as decentralized as I would imagine many people would want. And this is just another risk as it relates to prediction markets." — Steve ⚠️ https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1dGYllboLkYKX?s=20

𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬. Tap into multichain liquidity and onboard new users in seconds. With just one integration; Avail Nexus.

很好的思考。借着你思路。在考虑一个分层的复合型思路。 主流市场，占 80%，依然采用标准 UMA Optimistic + DVM。保持速度和低成本； 中高价值或高争议风险的，则动态上调 bond（按 volume / open interest / 潜在 payout 放大），甚至引入 KYC/白名单机制给 proposer 和 disputer（降低匿名攻击），此外为了保险，还可以并行验证（另一个 oracle 或 AI 初步判断）。 最后是超级大额的，远超 UMA 经济安全阈值，比如单市场 volume 超 5000万或 open interest 极高的，可升级到有明确问责主体的

- migrating existing open markets (esp high volume ones with multiple Bs at stake) seem very painful - positions already tokenized against the UMA adapter - unsure if can manually migrate liquidity/positions to new markets - changing the entire market-creation pipeline + getting users to move would

Polymarket 空投玩家现在已经卷出新高度： 不仅天天交易，还在从各个维度完善自己的账号—— 抵押 bond 去挑战提案， 质押 UMA 抢争议票权， 把“社区参与权重”玩成了真治理。 这已经不是单纯预测了，这是真金白银的 Skin in the Game。 而 predict 那边好像就简单多了： 测试各种策略拿分就行，没那么多麻烦。就是策略迭代太快，一公布就卷废。 今早 o1 也出新情况了—— 同分情况下突然“不同权”，临时加了一堆额外条件。 （虽然对 o1 特殊情况来说挺科学的，但也暴露了纯积分制的软肋） 盲刷、积分、积分加条件，3种模式，你更喜欢哪一种？

Crypto apps don't fail because of the tech. They fail because they make users stop. Stop to bridge. Stop to approve. Stop to switch chains. But the next-gen apps will let users swap, lend, stake, or send funds across chains, without leaving the app. Powered by Avail Nexus. https://t.co/jBzDAcKBF

到底是 SEC 的文件更权威还是 Polymarket 更权威呢？Polymarket 的审核流程就是 discord 开展辩论，交给一个市值仅有 5500 万美金的加密货币项目 UMA 的大户进行投票 也就是说，Polymarket 的安全性和结果公正性，一个目前估值 120 亿的项目，承载了上亿交易量和对应结果的预测市场，结果的公正性仅由市值五千多万的项目的少数集中持有者来维护 目前，已经有多起 Polymarket 篡改事实，结果与客观事实不符的判定出现，而这起事件被广受关注、很显然 PM 官方不占理的原因在于 1. SEC 文件的客观性和事实权威性，远比其他能够主观理解的事件更高

Kalshi, Polymarket and the UMA whales will make for a great story one day.

polymarket will sign their grave if they allow the UMA cabal to vote NO on this unreal incompetence