Manipulation, Informed Trading, and Regulation in Leveraged Event-Linked Markets

Maksym Nechepurenko

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.10486

Manipulation, Informed Trading, and Regulation in Leveraged Event-Linked Markets

Maksym Nechepurenko

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Leverage does not create manipulation or informed trading in event markets, but it changes their economics. We separate four conduct channels: market-price manipulation, real-world outcome manipulation, resolution-process manipulation, and informed trading that exploits non-public information without changing the event or resolution rule. A capital-constrained amplification model shows that gross directional gains scale with financed exposure while information, influence, concealment, execution, and enforcement costs need not scale proportionally. Leverage therefore weakly enlarges profitable influence opportunities under fixed-cost conditions, but endogenous price impact, convex detection costs, or enforceable position limits can reverse the result. We connect this model to the revised non-portability, taxonomy, and fill-side evidence of the companion papers. Historical-path replay identifies mechanical rule channels, not equilibrium conduct; fill-side address data support concentration analysis but not address-level spoofing or quote-withdrawal claims. The regulatory contribution is a functions-first framework covering product authorization, market-integrity surveillance, event-influence controls, resolution governance, and loss-bearing capital. A July 2026 source snapshot indicates an evolving United States framework and no harmonized cross-jurisdictional category for leveraged event contracts. Legal status remains product- and jurisdiction-specific.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TR econ.GN q-fin.EC q-fin.GN

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Maksym Nechepurenko. 2026-07-29. Manipulation, Informed Trading, and Regulation in Leveraged Event-Linked Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10486

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Gate Design and Stage-Dependent Incentives in Retail Proprietary-Trading Evaluations: Why Passing Is Not Standalone Evidence of Skill, and Why the Product Fails to Pay Under Measured Trading Constraints

Retail proprietary-trading firms sell a two-stage product: a paid evaluation that must reach a profit target before breaching a trailing drawdown, then a funded account that must survive a minimum window and a consistency rule before a payout. We show the geometry of this contract creates incentives that differ by stage and make passing a poor standalone signal of skill. Under end-of-day trailing the evaluation rewards a fast, lumpy cadence while the funded account punishes it, by a factor of nine in the joint gate. The evaluation is defeatable at zero skill: position sizing alone yields a pass probability near 0.40, against a measured cohort rate of 0.168. Pass probability rises with skill, but a real edge and aggressive sizing move it by nearly the same amount, so a pass rate confounds the two. Under a simplified contract model the seller's margin is bounded by the gap between perceived and actual gate probabilities, the probability analogue of shrouding a price component; the observed design, a permeable marketed evaluation and a hard payout gate, is consistent with that. Across the sector, pass rates are published far more often than payout rates. The same geometry produces negative expected value: within the measured strategy universe, no configuration at observed drifts clears break-even on any account sourced. Break-even lies between a 40.5% and 41.5% win rate at 1:1.5 net of costs, against a driftless 40.0%. The delta-neutral construction firms prohibit is approximately expected-value neutral at the observed payout ceiling. Every account-level result is reported against a zero-edge control.

q-fin.TR↗

arXiv2026

Resolution Is Not Settlement, Part I: Oracle Adjudication and Semantic Governance on Polymarket

Prediction-market resolution is often reduced to a terminal outcome and one timestamp. That representation is inadequate for leveraged event claims because rule versioning, request creation, proposal, dispute, reset, Oracle finality, and adapter terminality are distinct states with different observation precision and balance-sheet consequences. We reconstruct those states for Polymarket using Oracle request generations as the unit of adjudication. The population is frozen at Polygon block 79,721,080 and contains 185,550 initialized adapter-question instances and 350,703 decoded adapter logs. Exact requester-filtered extraction yields 504,332 decoded Oracle lifecycle events: 184,148 request creations, 159,447 proposals, 1,604 disputes, and 159,133 settlements. The accounting closes as 182,671 questions with at least one request plus 1,477 successor generations. Immutable chain identity and deployed request semantics provide exact linkage; unfinished histories remain right-censored. Request age is not semantic resolution age. Median request-to-first-proposal time is 182 seconds on the legacy route but 176,388-744,151 seconds on modern routes; post-reset successor proposals arrive within 300-2,909 seconds at the median. This descriptive contrast does not establish causal efficiency. Exact stable-ID metadata linkage recovers 104,032 of 185,550 questions (56.07%), leaves 81,518 unmatched, and produces no ambiguous exact match. External-source publication and contractual-decidability clocks remain unmeasured population-wide and are not replaced by mechanism timestamps. The results establish an event-sourced account of Oracle adjudication, semantic governance, and adapter terminality. Companion Part II reconstructs Conditional Tokens payout recording and observed redemption, preserving the boundary between adjudication, protocol settlement, and holder realization.

q-fin.TR↗

arXiv2026

Resolution Is Not Settlement, Part II: Protocol Finality and Observed Redemption on Polymarket

An Oracle result is not yet a protocol payout, a redeemable position is not yet collateral in a holder's account, and a redemption event is not a complete measure of economic entitlement. This companion paper develops an event-sourced framework for Polymarket conditions from preparation through protocol finality and observed holder realization. The empirical design uses three Conditional Tokens Framework event families derived from a pinned contract application binary interface (ABI): ConditionPreparation, ConditionResolution, and PayoutRedemption. It separates the contract-wide acquisition universe from the frozen Polymarket adapter-question cohort. The exact bridge contains 108,638 linked conditions. Of these, 99,283 have an observed protocol-resolution event by the fixed snapshot at Polygon block 90,114,204 (2026-07-12T17:11:41Z). Among resolved exact-linked conditions, 92,158 have an observed redemption of any amount and 91,817 have an observed positive-payout redemption; condition-specific Kaplan-Meier medians from first protocol resolution are 182 and 200 seconds respectively. The exact-linked payout taxonomy contains 53,847 canonical (0,1) vectors, 45,024 canonical (1,0) vectors, 410 fifty-fifty vectors, two other valid vectors, and 9,355 conditions with no observed resolution. Cross-contract Oracle-adapter-protocol ordering is reported conservatively: 823 conditions have an interval-qualified terminal generation, 48 have multiple candidate generations, 91,638 have no compatible terminal generation in the frozen evidence, and 16,129 are right-censored or otherwise unevaluable. The formal results show that Oracle finality does not identify protocol finality, protocol finality does not identify holder realization, and redemption events alone do not identify the fraction of entitlement redeemed without an independent balance-consistent entitlement denominator.

q-fin.TR↗