📢 Fees are now active on Predyx — here’s why. \ stacker news ~oracle

pull down to refresh

📢 Fees are now active on Predyx — here’s why.

451 sats \ 25 comments \ @mega_dreamer 16h oracle

📢 Fees are now active on Predyx — here’s why.

We had to urgently roll out market fees to counter some recent spammy, evil activity clogging up the system.

💸 Buy Fee: 2% 💸 Sell Fee: 2% 🏆 Win Fee: 1%

Still no deposits. Still instant payouts. Just a cleaner battlefield for real degens.

view all related items

381 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 16h

It's a good first step. I think there might be some more elegant solutions though, that don't introduce as much friction into the system.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 16h

Thanks.

The real of reason of buy/sell was this person was trying to double sell (but in the UI it shows up a buy/sell, buy/sell). From the software perspective we've fixed the issue of double sell (parallel API attacks).

101 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 15h

I think it is important to have an asymmetry between buying and selling: i.e. you can't get a full immediate refund by selling.

I haven't sketched it out on paper yet, but there's something here about time-preference and wanting to incentivize early purchases more than later ones.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @mega_dreamer OP 15h

Yes that's very thought provoking - "incentivize early purchases more than later ones."

Please let know me when you ponder more on this. We'd love to hear and implement it.

101 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15h

Will do

116 sats \ 7 replies \ @grayruby 14h

2% on each end plus a 1% win fee is a lot. I understand the need for fees but these are too high in my opinion.

It’s fine for just buying an outcome and waiting but it really disincentivizes trading.

Also I think there should have been an announcement before roll out so users could exit markets they don’t want to be in before fees hit.

Not trying to be too critical here. I will still use Predyx. Just trying to be candid with my feedback.

40 sats \ 6 replies \ @Coinsreporter 13h

I try to understand every LN business from SN model of once incentives. While increasing the fees they particularly mentioned about incentivising territory owners, I think that is good but it is one of the reasons for the decrease in engagement. The other way round to it could be curtailing the territory fees and gradually increasing it with the growth in engagement.

That being said, I'm definitely interested to know what other options can be for Predyx where it can be sustainable as business without having these kinda high fees structure?

121 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby 13h

I am not against fees. I just think they are too high and I don’t think charging fees without giving any notice is the right way to do business.

55 sats \ 4 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 13h

yes, guilty of not informing early enough.

I'm open to suggestion and ideas - what should be an ideal amount of fees in your perspective?

We can certainly remove fees, so that people can sell and exit if they don't agree with the fees.

101 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 13h

If you want people to buy and hold these fees are fine but if you want trading volume that should be at least half of this.

The lack of notice is what it is. You are in beta and all your users are supporters of the platform and want it to succeed.

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @mega_dreamer OP 13h

Really sorry about "no advance notice". I will be careful in future to first discuss with the community on similar situations.

You advice is taken - we will reduce the trading fee to half i.e 1% buy, 1% sell ASAP. Please give us few hours, @emre just went to bed. Will implement it once he wakes up.

On the same note - I will try and give you market creation permission. You can can create a market by adding the liquidity - and see for yourself how much liquidity is lost on the conclusion of the market. This is an inherent problem with any AMM, and especially LMSR.

view all 1 replies

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 13h

OKC "Yes" odds are 78.94 for yes but when you try to buy, it reaches to 95%

148 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 15h

Uuuuh, ugh?!

No more sweet, easy, effortless trading

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 15h

Yeah… sorry. Fees had to happen — here’s why:

Reducing Liquidity Drain: Thinly traded markets were consistently incurring losses. These fees help minimize that impact until we reach higher volume.
Creator Incentives: Fees enable profit-sharing with market creators, ensuring there’s a reason to launch and curate quality markets.
Enabling Liquidity Providers: This opens the door for crowdsourced liquidity, allowing LPs to share in fee revenue and support deeper, more efficient markets.
Spam Prevention: Some malicious activity was disrupting markets. Introducing fees adds a necessary friction to discourage abuse.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 14h

no such thing as a free lunch friend

60 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 15h

Fee Update on Predyx

We’ve officially activated market fees on Predyx. While this was always part of the long-term roadmap, recent activity forced us to accelerate the rollout. Here's why:

Reducing Liquidity Drain
Thinly traded markets were consistently incurring losses. These fees help minimize that impact until we reach higher volume.
Creator Incentives
Fees enable profit-sharing with market creators, ensuring there's a reason to launch and curate quality markets.
Enabling Liquidity Providers
This opens the door for crowdsourced liquidity, allowing LPs to share in fee revenue and support deeper, more efficient markets.
Spam Prevention
Some malicious activity was disrupting markets. Introducing fees adds a necessary friction to discourage abuse.

We’re committed to building a healthy, sustainable prediction ecosystem — and this is a key step forward.

101 sats \ 3 replies \ @BlokchainB 15h

Any way this can be a 20 basis fee and not 200 basis points?

73 sats \ 2 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 15h

We went with 2%, which is standard for LMSR-based markets. For context: • Manifold charges a 4% trading fee • Kalshi (non-LMSR) charges 2%

We’re still cheaper than most — and ours supports instant Lightning payouts for which we've been paying the fees. Thus it helps us keep LNAddress payouts free

101 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 15h

Well I hope they come down. These fees seem high for bitcoin/ lightning native tech

89 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 14h

Just to give you some insight into how LMSR works and why we needed to add fees: (Used ChatGPT for readability.)

LMSR (Logarithmic Market Scoring Rule) subsidizes liquidity by design. When a trader moves the market price, the system pays out more to correct predictions than it collects from wrong ones. This makes it great for price discovery — but bad for the house unless there’s high volume.

Take our Bitcoin market as an example:

We added 30,000 sats in liquidity.
If the final outcome is heavily one-sided (say, 90% of bets end up correct), we can easily lose 10,000+ sats from that single market.
That means even with a 2% trading fee, we’d need over 500,000 sats of trading volume just to breakeven.

This is why fees matter — not to make money off traders, but to reduce inevitable losses from subsidizing early, thin markets. We’re actively tuning the fees to the lowest sustainable level.

LMSR is powerful, but it bleeds unless you have consistent volume — and until we get there, fees are the only patch.

101 sats \ 3 replies \ @Coinsreporter 14h

I think it's important for the sustainability of the business. However this also means in some way that markets will now be over at +98% for yes and at 2% for a no. Isn't it?

20 sats \ 2 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 13h

no - these fees applies to actual sats paid or received. This nothing to do with odds.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinsreporter 13h

Thanks I've learnt it but noone is gonna buy at a loss in the end when market gets to these levels.

For instance:

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 13h

Yes, now I get it. I think reducing it to 1% will help, we have to try it out.

Or get rid of buying fee after certain threshold.