Methodology

Every claim needs an audit trail.

Beatpoly is built for professional use. That means our scores, statistics, and market notes must be explainable, testable, and limited by clear assumptions. This page documents how we evaluate prediction markets, how we classify risk, and what evidence is required before a statistic appears in Beatpoly research.

Review Scoring Framework →
Research Standard

The Beatpoly Research Standard

Every published metric should include enough information for a reader to understand where it came from, what it includes, what it excludes, and how much uncertainty remains.

For a statistic to be used in enterprise product decisions or cited as research, the following fields must be documented:

Data source
Date range
Venue coverage
Sample size
Inclusion rules
Exclusion rules
Cancelled / unresolved treatment
Fee assumptions
Slippage assumptions
Known limitations
Last updated date
Confidence intervals where applicable
Reliability Rating

How Beatpoly scores market reliability

Beatpoly's reliability rating is not a prediction of whether an event will happen. It is an assessment of whether the market price is clean, usable, and defensible for professional use.

A
High
Clear resolution criteria, strong liquidity, low abnormal-flow risk, and low source fragility. Generally suitable for trading, citing, or monitoring without major caveats.
B
Usable
Some limitations present but generally suitable for professional use with appropriate context. Users should review the specific flags before acting.
C
Caution
Meaningful weakness in at least one dimension — liquidity, resolution clarity, or information flow. Requires explicit context before use. Not recommended for citation without caveats.
D
High risk
Price may be significantly distorted, thin, ambiguous, or unsafe to use without major caveats. Professional users should treat with caution and document the risk explicitly.
F
Unreliable
Severe resolution, liquidity, manipulation, or integrity concerns. Price is not considered usable for professional monitoring, trading, or citation in current state.
Dimension 01

Resolution Risk Score

Measures: How likely the market is to settle cleanly and in line with the plain-English interpretation of the question.

A low resolution risk score means the market has clear, unambiguous rules, a reliable data source, and a well-defined settlement process. A high score means the market has risk of contested settlement, source failure, or wording ambiguity that could affect how the contract resolves.

Scoring inputs

Contract wording clarityResolution source defined Source dependency (single vs multiple)Oracle or adjudication mechanism Settlement timing vs. data releaseAmbiguous terms in contract Subjective judgment requiredChallenge / dispute process Data source manipulabilityCross-venue wording differences

High-risk examples

Single-source weather markets where one weather station determines resolution
Markets depending on subjective public statements or announcements
Markets with undefined terms such as "major," "significant," or "official"
Markets where two venues use different resolution sources for similar questions
Markets involving events known by a small group before public release
Dimension 02

Liquidity & Execution Quality Score

Measures: Whether the displayed price is usable for trading, monitoring, or public citation without significant distortion.

A thin market may show a price that cannot be executed without moving it significantly. Beatpoly models what a professional-sized trade would actually cost after spread, fees, and slippage.

Scoring inputs

Bid/ask spreadOrder-book depth Depth near mid-priceRecent volume Trade concentrationEstimated slippage Taker & maker fee impactFill probability Market age & maturityPrice jump frequency

High-risk examples

Wide spreads that exceed the apparent edge of a trade
Thin top-of-book depth — displayed price disappears on any real-size order
Volume concentrated in one wallet or a small set of wallets
Large price changes on small absolute trade sizes
Markets that appear liquid only at stale prices not refreshing in real time
Dimension 03

Cross-Venue Equivalence Score

Measures: Whether two similar-looking markets across venues are actually equivalent — asking the same question, resolved under the same rules, using the same data source.

Most cross-venue "arbitrage" opportunities fail this test. A price gap between Kalshi and Polymarket is compensation for basis risk, not free money. Beatpoly quantifies how much the markets actually differ.

Scoring inputs

Question wording comparisonResolution source comparison Cutoff date and timeSettlement process Dispute mechanismUnderlying data definition Geographic definitionTime zone treatment Edge-case handlingHistorical resolution divergence

High-risk examples

Two weather markets using different stations (e.g. airport vs. city centre)
Two political markets using different certification dates or vote-counting rules
Two crypto markets using different exchange feeds or candle definitions
Two macro markets using different data-release schedules or revision policies
Dimension 04

Market Integrity & Abnormal Flow Score

Measures: Whether market movement looks unusual, concentrated, or potentially disconnected from public information flow.

Abnormal flow detection does not prove wrongdoing. It identifies patterns that warrant additional scrutiny — particularly useful for compliance teams and media researchers who need to understand what is driving a price before relying on it.

Scoring inputs

Large price moves over short windowsMovement before announcement times New-wallet concentrationRepeated pre-catalyst behavior Public news catalyst matchingLiquidity shocks Order-book imbalanceCategory insider-risk exposure Wallet cluster detectionVolume-to-depth ratio

High-risk examples

Political decisions known before public filing or announcement
Corporate events known to internal employees before disclosure
Military or government actions known to officials before public reporting
Market movement without any identifiable public catalyst
Sports information known to teams or insiders before public release
Published statistics

Published statistics and audit status

The following statistics appear in Beatpoly's research library. Enterprise product decisions rely only on statistics whose methodology has been fully documented. Research library content may cite statistics before full audit publication, but those statistics require the documentation fields described in the Research Standard above.

StatisticUseRequired documentationStatus
72% of contracts resolve NOMarket-structure research / educational baselineVenue list, date range, market count, binary vs. multi-outcome treatment, cancelled market treatment, category breakdownProvisional — methodology card in progress
87.3% of traders lose moneyBehavioral research / educational baselineWallet sample, PnL definition, realized vs. unrealized treatment, fees, wash-trading filters, minimum activity thresholdProvisional — not used in enterprise scoring
22-point maker/taker execution gapExecution-quality researchSource paper, exact sample, venue applicability, fee period, definition of maker and taker in contextExternal claim — not used in scoring
161,000 contracts analyzedDataset credibilityMarket IDs, source, date range, venue split, category split, exclusion criteriaDataset card required before homepage use
$21.5B Polymarket 2025 volumeMarket contextSource, platform-reported vs third-party measured, time period, methodologySource required — remove until cited
Important: Beatpoly does not treat a statistic as enterprise-grade until the methodology is published. Research claims may appear in educational content before full audit publication, but enterprise product decisions rely only on documented datasets and defined scoring logic.
Limitations

What Beatpoly does not claim

Update cadence

Update cadence

Market data, liquidity metrics, and abnormal-flow alerts are designed for frequent updates as market conditions change. Methodology pages and research statistics are updated when datasets, scoring rules, or venue mechanics change materially. Last methodology review: April 2026.

Responsible use

Responsible use of prediction-market intelligence

Prediction markets can be powerful information tools, but they can also be distorted by poor liquidity, ambiguous rules, insider information, and market manipulation. Beatpoly is designed to help professional users identify these risks before relying on market prices.

Using Beatpoly data responsibly means understanding what each score does and does not measure, acknowledging the limitations documented on this page, and applying appropriate judgment before making decisions based on market prices.

View Platform → Request API Access