PredictHub editorial desk
PredictHub editorial
The editorial desk behind PredictHub’s prediction market guides, platform reviews and research. Materials without an individual byline are credited to the desk.
49 published materials
Contact the editorial team ↗Published work
Latest first- academy↗
Oracles and disputed resolutions
How an on-chain market learns what happened, and what a dispute does to the price.
- academy↗
How a prediction market resolves
The resolution criteria are the contract. Everything else is commentary.
- academy↗
YES plus NO is more than a dollar: reading price as probability
Where the extra cents come from, how to divide them out, and why raw prices cannot be compared across venues.
- academy↗
Binary, scalar and categorical contracts
Three payoff shapes, three different things a price is telling you.
- academy↗
How to read contract prices
Turning cents into probability, and what the spread tells you before you trade.
- academy↗
What is a prediction market?
A market where you trade contracts that pay out if an event happens — so the price becomes a probability.
- Platform review↗
Hedgehog Markets review
Real binary markets, real questions, almost no money in them. Hedgehog builds permissionless prediction markets on Solana and Eclipse by its own description, and the board covers crypto, politics, technology and sports with questions worth asking — Fed policy, an OpenAI lawsuit, US politics. The problem is depth: individual featured markets showed $38 and $503 when we looked, and at that size any position you would notice is the market. It publishes no terms, no privacy policy and no named operator, so who holds what and under whose law is unknown. Its interface is written in betting language throughout — "Bet. On. Anything." — while the instrument itself is an ordinary binary contract, which is a mismatch of framing rather than of mechanics. Interesting to watch, not somewhere to size a position.
- Platform review↗
Space review
Prediction markets on Solana, with the broadest board of the thin cohort and nothing else you can check. Space covers crypto, politics, sports, technology, economics and culture, which is genuinely wider than its peers at this size — and that breadth is the only thing the venue documents about itself. There are no terms, no privacy policy, no documentation and no named operator; the page carries no link matching any of those, and /terms returns a server error. So the operating entity, its jurisdiction, any licence, the deposit currency, every fee, the minimum deposit, withdrawal terms and which countries are excluded are all unknown, because nothing states them. We have also taken no liquidity measurement here, so our score on that criterion is a placeholder for real work rather than a finding. Not assessable on the evidence available.
- Platform review↗
Probable review
Probable’s public website announces acquisition by Predict.fun. This review records that product change; standalone trading, refunds and migration have not been tested. The score remains preliminary and reflects earlier public-document research, not a funded-account test or a current post-acquisition assessment.
- Platform review↗
Xmarket review
Xmarket offers creator-led prediction markets, with live and demo environments described in its terms. The linked terms identify an operator and describe non-custodial interfaces, correcting our earlier classification. This remains an incomplete assessment: fees, executable depth and withdrawal experience have not been fully checked. Read the country policy and each contract’s resolution rules before deciding whether this product fits your needs.
- Platform review↗
Trueo review
The best-documented of the newer venues, with a feature none of the others has: open positions accrue yield while you hold them. Trueo settles on Base, its markets carried real prices with meaningful liquidity when we read them, and its terms actually name the operator — Walking Wisdom International CO., Ltd., incorporated in Samoa — alongside a full restricted- territories list that excludes US persons and Canada without exception. The board is narrower than the leaders: crypto, politics, technology, business and finance, with no sports. No licence, no regulator, and Samoa incorporation carries no consumer protection a reader could invoke, which is the ceiling on any assessment of it. Fees, minimum deposit and withdrawal terms are not published anywhere we could find. Best for a non-US, non-Canadian trader who wants economic and political questions and values earning on idle collateral.
- Platform review↗
Opinion review
The most substantial venue outside the top two, and the hardest to actually reach. Opinion runs binary markets on BNB Chain across an unusually wide board — macro, sports, esports, crypto, politics, business, culture, plus hourly up/down markets — and its books carried real two-sided prices when we looked. It is non-custodial by its own terms, which removes the counterparty risk that dominates the custodial venues here, and it names its operator as Superchillclub Limited, which most on-chain venues do not. But the restricted list is the story: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Ontario, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and every EU and EEA country, with "there are no exceptions" in capitals. No licence and no regulator anywhere, and the operator's own country of incorporation is not stated. Best for a trader outside that list who wants breadth; unreachable for most of our readers.
- Platform review↗
Insight Prediction review
The only venue on this site that asks you to waive your right to complain to a regulator, and it appears to have no markets. Insight’s terms extract an unusual concession: you agree to accept resolutions as final and “to waive your right to sue over how market resolution decisions are made, or to file any whistleblower related claim to any government agency”, alongside a right to void a bet at sole discretion. It also holds sole discretion over when markets resolve, warns that the stated end date is subject to change, and settles sports edge cases against its own quotes — “we will resolve the market at an average of our sport’s bots trades”. One practice here is genuinely better than the pool average: a contested resolution gets a published draft explaining the reasoning, with community feedback invited before it is finalised. Balance that against the rest. Deposits arrive as crypto and are converted to a dollar balance on Insight’s own books, with no chain or contract named anywhere, and the footer’s links to terms, FAQ, privacy and about returned 404 to us. Most decisively: the markets page loads without a login and reports that there are no markets to display.
- Platform review↗
Pariflow review
You cannot find out who you would be depositing with, and that is a finding about the venue rather than a gap in our research. Pariflow’s terms do not name a counterparty: they defer to “the contracting Pariflow legal entity identified in the Regulatory Disclosures page”, and that page returned a 404. The site adds that it “may operate globally through separate legal entities where available”. No licence or regulator is named anywhere. On settlement it publishes more structure than several venues here — a designated primary source, a designated backup, a reputable official publication, then discretionary adjudication by Pariflow where sources conflict — but there is no user-facing dispute route at all. Dispute windows are mentioned in passing with no mechanism, forum, timeline or appeal described, and every adjacent sentence sets out what Pariflow may do rather than what a trader may. Finality is conditional in the venue’s favour: settlement is binding except where manifest error, source reversal or operational integrity controls require correction, and if a source revises data afterwards Pariflow “may reopen adjudication, adjust outcomes, and rebalance settlements”. A settled position that can be re-settled later, with nowhere to contest it, is the weakest combination in this criterion.
- Platform review↗
Futuur review
Published, specific settlement criteria attached to a venue that reserves sole discretion over the result, and that cannot tell you which company you are dealing with. The good part is real: markets name a primary designated source with a secondary confirmation mechanism, the full rules render in a market page fetched with no account, an unresolvable market is voided with stakes returned rather than settled on a guess, and 208,358 resolved events are readable over the public API. Against that, the terms state twice and without qualification that “Futuur will have sole discretion to make any and all determinations” and that those are “final and binding”; there is no window, bond or escalation anywhere, only an email address. The API even carries a first-class “reversed” status documented as “A previous resolution was reversed”, so undoing a settlement is a built-in capability rather than an exception. And the terms page carries two near-duplicate copies naming different operating companies — one Anjouan, one Curaçao — under two different governing laws, so which entity is bound by any of it is not established from the venue’s own documents. It also runs play-money and real-money markets side by side; those are not the same instrument and we never show them as one.
- Platform review↗
Hyperliquid review
A perpetuals venue with a new and deliberately narrow event-contract product, and a genuinely split picture on the thing that matters. What is good is unusual: outcome-market question templates are voted on by validators before any market instantiates them, and ambiguity is written into the template text rather than left to anyone’s discretion — a sports market resolves to 0.5 on a draw, a no contest, an unlisted winner or a missed deadline, and a price market pre-specifies what happens if the underlying is delisted. The settlement record is fully public and enumerable with no wallet, which is better than most venues here manage. What is weak is the other half. A single staked deployer key settles by submitting a fraction, and a search of Hyperliquid’s entire documentation for dispute, challenge, bond, appeal or arbitration returns nothing at all — there is no window, no bond and no escalation of any kind. The only page specifying who settles a deployer-registered market is subtitled “Testnet-only”, while three deployer venues carry live mainnet outcomes. Note the scope, too: the documentation describes one recurring BTC binary settling daily, with multi-outcome markets not in the initial release.
- Platform review↗
Augur review
This is not a venue you can trade on, and that is the whole entry. Augur’s own FAQ answers the question directly — you cannot trade “as a new Augur-native prediction-market application: one has not yet relaunched” — and the site’s headline reads “Augur is Rebooting”. What exists today is a forked REP token on Ethereum, tradable on third-party venues the project itself names as Kraken, Uniswap and GeckoTerminal. That is a token market, not a prediction market: buying REP is not taking a position on an event. The site dates the fork to 8 April 2026, says the migration window closed on 3 August 2026, and describes work under way on a new oracle architecture and an eventual Augur-native market protocol. The names attached are the Lituus Foundation and The Dark Florist; no operating company, jurisdiction or licence is stated anywhere. We keep this record so a historically important project is on file as dormant rather than silently absent, and so that anyone arriving here from an old article finds out what changed. It carries no score, because there is nothing operating to score.
- Platform review↗
Zeitgeist review
On paper, one of the most serious dispute designs in the category; in practice, a chain that looks dormant and documentation three years out of date. Zeitgeist runs its own layer-1 with a bonded per-market oracle, a staked juror Court using commit-reveal voting, exponential appeal bonds and a global-disputes layer behind that. Two things in the source undercut it. The runtime binds the resolve origin to Root, on an extrinsic whose own comment says it “Allows the `ResolveOrigin` to immediately move a reported or disputed market to resolved” — so a privileged account can end a live dispute and settle it, bypassing Court and appeals entirely. And there is no void: the outcome type carries only categorical and scalar variants, with no invalid, so a badly specified market resolves to something and its traders are not refunded, whatever the documentation’s leftover references to `Invalid` still say. That documentation is unreliable on its own mechanism — wrong dispute period, wrong bond token, a disputer flow the current code does not accept — and every page is stamped August 2023. More materially than any of it: markets sit listed months past their end dates, the last commit to the chain repository is 1 December 2025, and the official RPC and indexer did not answer us.
- Platform review↗
Myriad Markets review
A low barrier to entry — three dollars, a zero maker fee, settlement in USD1 or USDC.e — and the widest gap on this site between what a venue publishes and what it has deployed. Myriad’s documentation gives its whole settlement process in one sentence: “Resolution is managed by the Myriad team based on the Market Rules.” We searched all nineteen documentation pages for an appeal, a challenge, a bond or an escalation and found nothing about market outcomes; the only route offered anywhere is a support ticket. Meanwhile the contract in Myriad’s own public repository carries an adminResolveMarket function, gated on a resolution-admin role, that writes the outcome directly without calling an oracle at all — and Myriad’s own commissioned audit says plainly that holders of that role “can resolve markets and set voided payout ratios, giving them control over which side wins”. The terms of use reserve no such discretion and disclose no such role. So the published documents and the deployed code do not describe the same venue, and the documents are the more flattering of the two.
- Platform review↗
Limitless Exchange review
Fully collateralised binary markets on Base, operated by Street Chow Inc., a Panamanian company, with no licence anywhere. The thing to get straight before anything else: the CFTC’s register lists “Limitless Markets US, LLC” with status Pending, dated 1 May 2026. Pending is an application. It confers nothing, and this venue should not be described as CFTC-regulated unless and until that entry reads Designated — we have also not verified that the pending US entity is the same business. On settlement, Limitless is candid and centralised: Pyth resolves the majority of markets and “Other markets may use manual resolution by the Limitless team”, with the outcome “final and binding” and no window, no bond and no escalation. The refund policy is where it gets expensive. If a market is misresolved, Limitless refunds only the bet amount, while the wrong side keeps its winnings because payouts “cannot be voided or clawed back”. A trader who was right and lost gets their stake back, not the value of the position they held. Credited for publishing that policy at all, and for serving full market criteria without an account.