Prediction Markets Predict Events. What Happens When the Market Predicts Itself?

[savetheFORUM]

I am not sure, OP; maybe he is a scammer, maybe he is not, I would not know. However, I do think the idea is good, but the twist is not. I do not think that it makes any logical sense that the least voted one would be the one that wins. I think it should be the other way around; the winners should get the money. Whatever money the loser puts in should be equally distributed to the winners based on their bet size. Why give money to the people who to which one will be picked the least? I think it has a psychologically better way to approach for winners if most of the people picked something.

And it would even balance itself out, because if people keep picking one part mostly, then one day the other side will look better, and people could try to do that. In the end, I think the game itself is a great idea. But OP will not get rich from it, not because of flags or anything like that, but because if it ever gets any attention, then every single casino in the world would add something like this to their website anyway.

[Nathrixxx]

I believe that with the strategy and idea you are suggesting here, things could go better for those who are into predictions in gambling.

There are a lot of predictions that people make when it comes to platforms that provide such services, but I'm not the type who always admits anything being predicted to happen the way we predicted it.

[Zwei]

1. The fee is 12%, fixed. Not 10–20%.

the platform fee is 10-20%, which is crazy

If a range is displayed anywhere on the site or in the docs, that is my error in the copy and I am correcting it.

silly me, how would i know the fee info on YOUR site is wrong. not like 12% is still not robbery.

So the only thing worth offering is verifiability, not reassurance:

• Commit–reveal on votes. Each vote is submitted as a hash of (choice + nonce) and revealed only at round close. Nobody — including me — can read the tally while the round is open, so there is no window in which I could position against it.

that would only work if you couldn't take a sneak peek at the (choice + nonce), if this is all being done server side. it's as good as "trust me bro".

My earlier service was blockchain development, not scam recovery.

are you sure about that? it looks like scam recovery to me, i mean these were your words:

Wallet Recovery Assistance: Lost Words & Partial Private Keys

Are you missing some words from your mnemonic phrase or have partial knowledge of your private key? Don’t lose hope!

I can help you recover your crypto wallet!

With expertise in cryptography and advanced recovery techniques, I specialize in:

Recovering Wallets: If you have some of your mnemonic phrase or private key, I can assist in recovering the rest.
Advanced Techniques: Utilizing sophisticated methods to piece together missing information and regain access to your funds.
How it works:

Provide Details: Share the information you have—partial mnemonic phrases, private key fragments, etc.
Assessment: I’ll analyze the data and outline a recovery plan.
Recovery: Employing state-of-the-art tools and techniques to restore access to your wallet.
Why Choose Me?

Proven track record in crypto wallet recovery.
Confidential and secure handling of your information.
Expertise in cryptography and recovery strategies.
Affordable Services: High-quality recovery assistance at a very cheap and affordable rate.
Ready to recover your funds? Contact me with the details, and let’s get started on reclaiming your crypto assets!

DM for more information or to get started.

so... is the "blockchain development" in the room with us?

[Hamziqqq]

Fee structure change  based on your feedback

When we posted here earlier, several members raised concerns about our fee: 12% taken from the losing pool. The main criticisms were that the effective rate was unclear, that it varied round to round, and that "12%" sounded high without context.

We took that seriously. Here is what changed.

Old: 12% of the losing pool
New: 5% of the total pool

Why this is a real reduction, not a rebrand

In our format the losing side is the majority side by definition it is always at least 50% of the total pool. So the old fee, expressed as a share of total volume, worked out to:

- 50/50 split → 12% x 0.50 = 6.0%
- 60/40 split → 12% x 0.60 = 7.2%
- 70/30 split → 12% x 0.70 = 8.4%
- 80/20 split → 12% x 0.80 = 9.6%

The old effective rate could never fall below 6%, and in a typical round it was 7–9%. A flat 5% is lower than the old rate in every possible case, including the best one. There is no split where the new structure costs you more.

Worked example

Yes pool $1,000 / No pool $400 (No is the minority, so No wins)

- Old: fee = 12% of $1,000 = $120, winners share $1,280
- New: fee = 5% of $1,400 = $70, winners share $1,330

A $20 winning stake returns $66.50 instead of $64.00.

Why flat

Under the old model your real cost depended on how everyone else bet, which you cannot know at the moment you place your stake. A flat rate on the total pool is one published number, identical every round, and checkable against the round's deposit totals. You know what you are paying before you commit, not after.

Context

This is a pari-mutuel format, so the honest comparison is with other pool-based systems rather than with order books. Horse racing takeout typically runs 15–25%. Betting exchanges charge 2–5%, but on net winnings rather than on the pool, so their effective cost is lower than the sticker suggests. Order-book prediction markets are cheaper still. We are not claiming to undercut Polymarket — different product, different mechanics. Within pool-based betting, 5% is at the low end.

Still in progress

The other points raised here provable fairness and collusion resistance  are being worked on separately. Commit-reveal for stake submission and Merkle root anchoring of round data are in development. We will post details when they are live rather than announce them early.

The fee change is live now. Criticism welcome  it is the reason this changed.

[Hamziqqq]

so... is the "blockchain development" in the room with us?

Fair to dig it up, so let me answer it directly instead of dodging.

You are conflating two different things. Scam recovery is the "we will get your stolen funds back from the scammer" service. That is a scam, near enough always, and that is what I said I do not do. Wallet recovery is a cryptography problem: partial seed phrases, forgotten passphrases, corrupted keystores, damaged key material. It is a real technical field with real operators. Dave Bitcoin, Unciphered and KeychainX have been doing it publicly for years.

My 2024 post was the second thing. I posted it because it is adjacent to what I actually work on: elliptic curve cryptography, ECDLP, Pollard's Kangaroo and BSGS work on the Bitcoin puzzle addresses, post-quantum signature schemes. My threads and post history are open, check what I have written about. Partial-key reconstruction is the same search-space problem from a different angle.

That said, the wording of that post was bad and I am not going to defend it. "Send me your partial mnemonic" is exactly how the actual scams open, and I should have known how it reads on this forum. Any serious recovery work is structured so the client never hands over key material in the clear. That was inexperience in how I presented it, not intent.

On commit-reveal, you are right and I am not going to argue it:

that would only work if you couldn't take a sneak peek at the (choice + nonce), if this is all being done server side. it's as good as "trust me bro".

Server-side commit-reveal proves nothing. If the server can see the plaintext, the commitment is theatre. The only version worth building is one where nonces are generated client-side, commitment hashes are published live during the round so they cannot be swapped afterwards, and the tally is cryptographically unreadable until close, which is what drand timelock encryption gives you: votes encrypted to a future drand round key, decryptable by anyone once that round publishes, by nobody before, including me.

I am not asking you to take that on faith either. I will post it when it is live and verifiable, not before. Until then treat the fairness claim as unproven, because it is.

On the fee: the 10-20% on the site was wrong, that was on me, and it is now a flat 5% of the total pool. Details in my post above.