Polymarket Faces Volume Double-Counting Claims After New Research

Polymarket is back in the spotlight. This time, it is not about election odds or wild political bets. It is about how the platform reports its trading volume. New research shared on X claims that Polymarket’s volume may be double-counted across many public dashboards. The finding came from researcher @notnotstorm and was reposted by Paradigm co-founder Matt Huang. The claim spread fast. So did the backlash.

According to the research, Polymarket’s on-chain data records each trade in more than one way. As a result, many analytics sites may be adding both sides of the same trade. This could inflate reported volume without any wash trading involved. That matters because Polymarket’s explosive growth has become a major talking point in crypto this year. Any data flaw now raises questions about how big that growth really is.

Charts, Code, and the Root of the Claim

The researcher backed the claim with smart contract snippets and a long-term volume chart. The data showed steady growth through 2024. It then showed a massive spike in late 2025.

Chart – Polymarket USDC Volume Metrics shared by @notnotstorm

The key issue centers on how volume is measured. Some dashboards track OrderFilled values. Others track maker-side and taker-side cash flow. If both sides get added together, the total can appear twice as large. In prediction markets, one user’s loss becomes another user’s gain. That creates two entries for one trade. If an analytics site sums both, the number doubles. Supporters of the research say this explains Polymarket’s unusually large public numbers. Critics say this is basic market structure, not a platform bug.

Critics Push Back as Bias Claims Surface

The reaction from crypto analysts was instant and divided. Several data teams said their dashboards already use notional volume. That means they only track one side of the trade. They say their numbers are not inflated. Others noted that this volume method is common across many exchanges. Some even argued that Polymarket’s visibility makes it easier to audit than most centralized platforms.

However, the debate took a political turn. Some users accused Paradigm of stirring drama because it backs Kalshi, a direct rival to Polymarket. That fueled claims of competitive bias. Matt Huang did not accuse Polymarket of fraud. Still, critics said reposting the claim without full context created unnecessary fear. Even members of the research thread later clarified that the issue applies mainly to third-party dashboards, not Polymarket’s internal accounting. The tone online grew heated. Accusations flew, memes followed and Crypto Twitter did what it always does.

What This Means for Users and the Market

For everyday traders, nothing changes right now. Polymarket continues to operate normally. Markets remain liquid. Bets still settle as expected. However, the episode exposed a bigger issue. Most people rely on third-party dashboards for volume data. If those tools define volume differently, comparisons across platforms become messy. This debate also shows how fast narratives can shift in crypto. One technical thread can reshape public opinion in hours. That speed brings transparency. It also brings noise.

For Polymarket, the next step is simple. Clear communication will matter more than charts. If the platform explains how it tracks volume and how outsiders should interpret it, much of the confusion will fade. For the wider industry, this is a reminder. Data is power but only if everyone agrees on how it is measured. Right now, the real story is not just about double-counting. It is about trust, transparency, and how crypto markets prove their growth without leaving room for doubt.