⚡️ A Bitcoin-native prediction market powered by sats and Lightning is here!
1033 sats \ 18 comments \ @mega_dreamer 16h lightning
Bitcoiners, this is the moment we’ve been waiting for! ⚡️ A Bitcoin-native prediction market powered by sats and the Lightning Network is finally here, and our beta goes live in less than 10 days! 🔮🚀
Our competition isn’t Ethereum or any other altcoin—it’s the US dollar. Polymarket runs on USDC, Kalshi operates on fiat, but only we are powered by sats. Why does this matter? Bitcoin’s deflationary nature makes it the perfect currency for long-term bets, and only with sats can we create micro-markets where you can bet with just a few cents.
We need your support! Follow @predyx_markets on Twitter, share this with your network, and sign up for the beta to help us make Bitcoin-native prediction markets the future! Let’s lead the way together. 🌍🔗 Predyx.com
write
preview
related posts
154 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 15h
No website?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 14h
Sorry, it seems we missed creating the hyperlink. Here's the website to sign-up: Predyx.com
reply
100 sats \ 10 replies \ @cheerioMsSophie 15h
How do you plan to resolve markets? Especially when they are controversial.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 14h
That’s a great question! Some markets can definitely be controversial, like "Will Biden drop out due to health concerns?" While we might have our own opinions, we follow the official statements to maintain consistency. To avoid confusion, we aim to create markets based on highly verifiable events with clear, objective criteria. For instance, the question could be simplified to: "Will Biden drop out of the Presidential race?" This makes the outcome much clearer. In the rare cases where an event is difficult to verify, we consult peer markets like Kalshi and Polymarket for resolution guidance.
It's also important to note that, unlike the UMA Protocol, our resolution team is centralized. As a small, early-stage startup, we have a dedicated team making final decisions. In very rare situations, we might need to cancel a market and issue refunds based on the current value of shares. We’re still working out the finer details of this process.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 14h
deleted by author
reply
144 sats \ 7 replies \ @cheerioMsSophie 14h
I like the concept of decentralized prediction markets a lot but i have seen the shortcommings from decentralized prediction markets. Maybe you can help me understand with 2 real life examples how predyx would handle those better:
One good example would be what happened in polymarket.

Venezuela
The market was "who wins the venezuelan election" with the primary source "venezuelan official statement". So most participants betted Maduro Yes, because they expected it to be rigged. And the official statement was as expected: Maduro won. There was a catch though. The second source was "consensus of reporting". The market went through UMA multiple times and resulted in Maduro No.
How would you avoid this mess? Only a single source of truth?

Kennedy
Another example: "Will Kennedy withdraw from the presidential race by Friday" (The Friday he announced supporting the Trump campaign)
The market resolved to yes despite Kennedy repeatedly stating that he will only suspend his campaign while still running in the race. He made a deal to withdraw from the ballot in some states while still running in most states and even applying for new states. He also explained a way how he still can become president.

closing thoughts
Things like those destroyed trust in the platform and made people think twice if they are really betting the event or betting on betting the event.
So please explain for the two examples how you would avoid this problem. There is a lot of money at stake and actors from both positions (yes and no) will try to influence how the market resolves, also using scam tactics.
reply
25 sats \ 4 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 13h
Disclaimer: We've used ChatGPT for grammatical corrections and formatting.
We totally understand the concerns raised from previous experiences with decentralized prediction markets. Let me address both examples and explain how PREDYX would handle them differently:
1. Venezuela Election Market
In the Polymarket example, confusion arose because there were conflicting sources of truth: "official statement" vs. "consensus of reporting." At PREDYX, we would avoid this by sticking to a single, clearly defined source of truth. For political events like elections, we would use one official source, such as the final certified results from the country’s electoral authority. This eliminates ambiguity and prevents scenarios where participants are confused by conflicting sources. If an event were difficult to verify or there were conflicting reports, we would consult trusted peer markets (e.g., Kalshi) and assess the best course of action.
In rare cases, if there's still too much uncertainty, we might cancel the market and refund users based on current share valuations to maintain trust.
2. Kennedy Campaign Withdrawal Market
In cases like Kennedy’s partial withdrawal, the phrasing of the market question is crucial. At PREDYX, we ensure that questions are framed in a way that can be objectively verified with clear criteria. In this case, the market could be phrased as “Will Kennedy completely drop out of the race?” with specific terms around what "withdrawal" means (e.g., removal from ballots in all states or an official public declaration of a full withdrawal). This removes the ambiguity and provides clarity, so the market can be fairly resolved.
3. 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Market (Trump Example)
To further demonstrate how we handle clear resolution criteria, consider this example:
Resolution Criteria:
The market will resolve to "Yes" if Donald J. Trump is officially declared the winner of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, certified by Congress based on the U.S. Electoral College results. The official verification will come from the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC). If Trump is not declared the winner by the FEC, the market will resolve to "No."
This approach guarantees that only one official source—in this case, the FEC—is used to verify the outcome, minimizing confusion and manipulation attempts.
Closing Thoughts
We understand the importance of trust and transparency in prediction markets, and that’s why we’ve designed PREDYX to avoid these pitfalls:
  • Clear resolution criteria for every market, based on a single, objective source of truth.
  • A centralized resolution team (for now) that evaluates ambiguous cases with caution and fairness.
  • The ability to cancel and refund markets in extreme, unverifiable cases to protect users.
By being precise with market phrasing and sticking to verifiable events, we aim to make PREDYX a reliable and trustworthy platform. We're also building a system that discourages manipulation by providing well-defined rules from the start.
Hope this has answered some of your concerns, please share your advice if you think there are better ways of handling such situations.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @cheerioMsSophie 13h
This sounds nice, as long as the team is not invested in the bets it resolves. I do not suggest this is the case, i just want to highlight the contra of centralized resolving.
Regarding the cancelation of a market: would it be possible to refund at the individual price the participants entered the market? Otherwise it would not really be a refund but more like a forced liquidation at marketprice.
reply
25 sats \ 2 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 11h
I'm glad I could address some of your concerns! We're still a small team, and funnily enough, none of us have a real interest in betting ourselves—we just love creating markets. That’s what gets us excited! Internally, we even compete based on metrics like the number of traders, trading volume, and even market likes. It’s basically our version of Instagram!
As for market cancellations, we're still ironing out the details. To give you a better sense of our approach, we use the LMSR (Logarithmic Market Scoring Rule) algorithm for pricing and odds calculations. Unlike traditional crypto trading, where market makers and takers are abundant, prediction markets don’t work the same way. That’s why liquidity is crucial for market fluidity, and we’ll be injecting a significant amount of it ourselves to keep things moving.
In the event of a market cancellation, we’re planning to forfeit our injected liquidity to compensate traders. However, we also plan to allow external Liquidity Providers (LPs) to inject liquidity based on a fee-sharing model. Here’s where the dilemma lies: we can’t expect external LPs to forfeit their stake in case of a cancellation. This is a tricky situation, and it’s going to take us some time to finalize a fair and acceptable market cancellation policy.
reply
200 sats \ 1 reply \ @cheerioMsSophie 11h
Thank you for the details, i understand the problem better now. Maybe you could put aside some yield from fees to an "insurance fund". This fund could be used to mitigate the impact on users in case of the cancellation of a market. This would only be possible if a cancellation is a rare case, otherwise the fund would never get to a decent level ;) All in all this is a problem to be addressed later on i guess.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 10h
Thanks for suggesting the "insurance fund"! It’s a fantastic idea to create a pool to hedge against market cancellation risks. Cancellations should be rare, so having an insurance fund in place could actually be a smart and effective way to mitigate any potential impact. We’ll definitely be exploring how this could work in practice!
reply on another page
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 14h
Very interested in the answers to these two examples, too. I don't think there will be reassuring answers, but who knows :)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 10h
Hey @south_korea_ln, I hope I was able to provide some reassurance with my responses. I’ve tried to be as transparent as possible! By the way, we’re the same team behind Triible (the Sportsbook on LN), though we’ve grown a bit in size since then. We’ve got some exciting updates coming for Triible—soon, it will offer fixed odds betting on prediction markets, effectively becoming a market maker for Predyx. Ultimately, Triible will evolve from a traditional Sportsbook into a SportsMarket, where all sports bets are backed by the market itself. Big things are on the horizon!
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Thereal 15h
What on your platform should I not overlook
reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 14h
Great question! One key feature you shouldn’t overlook is the ability to participate in micro-markets using sats. Unlike other platforms using USDC or fiat, we let you trade and bet with just a few sats, making it accessible to everyone.
Another standout is our long-term markets denominated in Bitcoin, a deflationary asset. This means your winnings could appreciate over time, unlike with fiat-based markets.
Please remember, we are still a custodial platform, which comes with its own risk and reward. While we handle your funds for now, this setup allows us to offer instant payouts via the Lightning Network, but we’re always working to improve and ensure security.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Thereal 14h
When can I anticipate receiving non-custodial service?
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @mega_dreamer OP 12h
We’re actively working on finding the best non-custodial solution. We've been collaborating with the team at THNDR Games to explore non-custodial betting through their wrapped invoice architecture, while also experimenting with DLP on Lightning for an optimal user experience.
Here’s a look at our roadmap, which may evolve as we refine our approach:
  • Release 1: Simple binomial markets with YES/NO options and single outcomes. Q3 2024
  • Release 2: Polynomial markets with multiple outcomes. Q4 2024
  • Release 3: Integrate non-custodial betting through THNDR's API, DLP, or another emerging Layer 2 solution. Q1/Q2 2025
That said, we believe the concept of a fully non-custodial prediction market solution has limitations. Even if a non-custodial setup is in place, it hinges on accurate market resolution by oracles. If an oracle resolves the market incorrectly, the non-custodial aspect becomes irrelevant, as the core outcome is still compromised. Whether it’s a single centralized resolver or a group of 20 decentralized individuals, the risk of human error, manipulation, or bias always exists. Humans can be influenced by emotions, greed, or fear, which can lead to unfair resolutions.
Our priority is to strike the right balance between offering secure, fair, and transparent markets while acknowledging these inherent challenges in the prediction market space.
Disclaimer: We've used ChatGPT for grammatical corrections and formatting.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 12h
How long is the waitlist? Will it be a wait for months. Bitcoin prediction market? What do you predict about?
reply