I get where you're coming from, but there's an important distinction between gambling and prediction market trading. Gambling is often a pure game of chance, where the odds are heavily stacked against the player, like rolling dice or spinning a wheel. There’s little to no room for analysis or informed decision-making.

Prediction markets, on the other hand, are more like intelligent trading. In these markets, you’re betting on real-world events, using research, insights, and analysis to make informed decisions. It’s about using your knowledge to assess probabilities and take calculated risks—similar to how traders analyze stocks or commodities.

For example, in a prediction market on the US election, you can weigh polling data, historical trends, and geopolitical factors before placing your bet. You’re not leaving it to chance; you’re making an informed prediction based on available information.

So, it’s not just gambling—it’s strategic trading where the goal is to outthink the market rather than just hoping for a lucky break.

We might have something for you that could be of interest! We definitely have a 2024 US Elections Market lined up. You can place bets on events like the US election results, and no need to worry about losing purchasing power—our platform is built on Bitcoin. Check it out, I just posted this last night: #690916.

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!

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!

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

We understand the importance of trust and transparency in prediction markets, and that’s why we’ve designed PREDYX to avoid these pitfalls:

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.

Sorry, it seems we missed creating the hyperlink. Here's the website to sign-up: Predyx.com

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.

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.