Market Trust diligence packet

Another crypto hack over $100m by September 30?

Do not citeMeasurement certainty Low
Current daily snapshot

2 of 6 pillars measured, 3 modeled by fixed rules, 1 not assessed. Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.

UseUse with caveatsDiscountDo not cite

One of four bands, strongest warning on the right

market quality score.

Use only as a review target. Current-card issues must clear before this price is used as evidence.

Market quality

44 / 100

Interval 12-53

Evidence confidence

low

58 / 100

Source health

source gate passed

1 sources | dropped 0

Audit chain

beb813b1a0...

row hash verified

Memo language

Convexly rates this polymarket market "Another crypto hack over $100m by September 30?" as Do not cite. Use only as a review target. Current-card issues must clear before this price is used as evidence. Caveat to carry: Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet. This is market diligence, not a trading instruction or proof that the market probability is correct.

Caveat to carry: Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.

Export
How to use this packet and what changes the verdict

Use this packet when

  • Use to explain why this market should stay out of a citation set for now.
  • Use as a recovery checklist for source freshness, coherence, depth, or evidence gaps.

Do not use it as

  • A trading instruction.
  • Proof that the market probability is correct.
  • A manipulation accusation or person-level identity claim.

What changes the verdict

  • Clear current blocker: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
  • Clear current blocker: Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
  • Clear current blocker: The rating moves under leave-one-out or weight-perturbation checks.
How the score adds upWhy this verdict
2 measured | 3 modeled | 1 not assessed

Why this rating

Composite 44 · Do not cite

Measurement certainty

Low

2 measured · 3 modeled · 1 not assessed

Certainty reflects how much of this market we measured, not how good the market is.

  • CoherenceMeasuredlow readingweight 25.0

    5 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 25 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

    • · full provenance cme signal linked
    • · signal price observations linked
    • · no observed checkpoint yet
    30+9.4
  • ExecutabilityModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 20.0

    Executability scored as worse-of(spread, depth) from a single orderbook snapshot; the two were merged from the former liquidity + depth pillars to stop double-counting one correlated source.

    • · executability worse of spread depth
    • · spread: top-of-book spread 20.4c
    • · spread: spread is 65% of mid, heavy slippage on size
    • · spread: pp-band-to-cents-band approximation in effect (depth_5pct_usd/2 per side); per-side decomposition pending substrate work
    10+2.5
  • Resolution reliabilityModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 20.0

    Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.

    • · resolution metadata present manual review pending
    70+17.5
  • Participant flowNot assessednot yet measured for this marketweight 20.0

    Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.

    • · below publishable sample floor
    • · edge score composite descriptive not skill
    • · high participant concentration
    • · insufficient scored accounts
    not assessednot assessed
  • Integrity risk screenModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 10.0

    Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.

    • · top-3 wallets control 95% of notional flow
    • · 29% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
    • · flow events: 11
    • · distinct wallets: 7
    67+8.4
  • Audit completenessMeasuredweight 5.0

    3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.

    • · artifact hashes present
    • · source watermarks healthy
    100+6.3

How it adds up: composite = Σ(score × weight) / Σ(weight) across measured + heuristic pillars only. Pending and data-rights-blocked pillars are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Total contributing weight = 80.0.

Caveat: 1 pillar not assessed yet; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.

Market identityWhat is being rated

Venue

polymarket

condition 0x109aca9db6a61cc8...

Category

Crypto

used for coverage and validation breadth

Market status

active

venue-provided lifecycle state when available

Resolution rule

This is a market on whether any crypto project or exchange suffers an exploit or hack of value at least $100 million USD equivalent between the creation of this market and 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No.” Decentralized exchanges and lending protocol hacks will count. The primary resolution source for this market will be the Rekt News leaderboard (https://rekt.news/leaderboard/), however a credible consensus of reporting may also be used.

card_id: mt-v02:polymarket:0x109aca9db6a61cc822236f2fb5ffdb4307ee19217c5ea95732e7fbc908ee7cf6:2026-08-07

market_id: 9b84df00-6b8c-40e3-9fcf-3981f20fe48a

venue_market_id: 0x109aca9db6a61cc822236f2fb5ffdb4307ee19217c5ea95732e7fbc908ee7cf6

resolution_source: 0x65070BE91477460D8A7AeEb94ef92fe056C2f2A7

Audit chainReceipt and verification

Convexly stores the card payload, removes the row_hash field, canonicalizes the remaining JSON, and recomputes the SHA-256 hash. This is the bridge from a readable verdict to a buyer-reviewable audit chain.

market-trust-v02:2026-08-07T15-00-29-403Z

method: market_trust_card_v0_2

row_hash: beb813b1a0f8fabb208a6765f65aefd3e0798184ac5f4ccdfb87516096c84bbf

previous_row_hash: f208d484fd609f344288ad737710b4adbdd28c3d2bf923883bac09c9b4abb9aa

source_artifact_hashes: e084884d3881a27db3d3acc900f37a5add677bd86d9274d21c666e6dcf8dd412, e6ed0f9b5333a7ea8678525cda677181c125a54ea31181005595d9360e08bdff

Verdict hashImmutable verdict archive

This verdict is archived as a canonical JSON object with a SHA-256 content hash. The hashed payload carries the methodology version (market_trust_card_v0_2), the canary_preview label, and a fixed boundary statement; none of them can be removed without changing the digest.

verdict archive sha256: 991f03c95cfaa0baccb0e047646313bd557e5d3a1c33acce37939846723fe7ef

How to verify this hash
  1. Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x109aca9db6a61cc822236f2fb5ffdb4307ee19217c5ea95732e7fbc908ee7cf6/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
  2. Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x109aca9db6a61cc822236f2fb5ffdb4307ee19217c5ea95732e7fbc908ee7cf6/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical" | shasum -a 256
  3. Compare your digest to archive_sha256 in the JSON response at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x109aca9db6a61cc822236f2fb5ffdb4307ee19217c5ea95732e7fbc908ee7cf6/archive?venue=polymarket. Matching digests mean the archived verdict content is byte-for-byte unchanged.
  4. Cross-check card_row_hash against the stored full-card receipt at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0x109aca9db6a61cc822236f2fb5ffdb4307ee19217c5ea95732e7fbc908ee7cf6/verify?venue=polymarket.

Stored v0.2 cards are frozen scorecards: a re-score inserts a new row with a new card_id and records the prior receipt in previous_row_hash, and the filed calibration design binds Convexly to never mutate frozen card-time rows. The archive is a deterministic serialization of one stored row, so the same row always reproduces the same archive_sha256.

Participant and integrity screenWho shaped the price

Participant-flow screens flagged concentration, unknown-flow, or low-edge-flow conditions for review. This is an integrity-risk screen, not a manipulation accusation and not person-level identity resolution.

Scored flow

92.7%

3 scored accounts

Unknown flow

7.3%

higher unknown flow lowers confidence

Participants

7

public accounts observed

Top flow share

61.1%

concentration diagnostic

high participant concentrationunknown or low sample flow present

Not claiming: wash-trading detection; sybil detection; manipulation-free market.

Market Fitness - pre-trade diligence (experimental)

4 of 6 diagnostics have a derivable observable on this stored card; 2 are insufficient_data. An insufficient_data row means the card lacks that input, not that the check passed.

Depth and slippage at size is a Researcher feature.

The resolution-reliability, manipulation, and basis-risk reads below are open. To see the fill cost at $100 / $1k / $10k and the executability detail, upgrade to Researcher.

Depth durability

heuristic

insufficient data

At-size depth and slippage detail is a Researcher feature. Upgrade at /pricing to see fill cost at size.

Observable: Executability pillar: worse-of(top-of-book spread, modeled price impact) from the latest inspected orderbook snapshot at 2026-08-07T15:00:22.729+00:00

Caveats: derived from a single orderbook snapshot; durability across time is not yet measured on this card; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated; gated detail requires researcher

Spread and price impact

heuristic

insufficient data

At-size depth and slippage detail is a Researcher feature. Upgrade at /pricing to see fill cost at size.

Observable: Top-of-book spread (price points) and modeled price impact for a fixed notional, from the latest inspected orderbook snapshot

Caveats: spread cost over a holding period is not modeled; this is a single-snapshot read; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated; gated detail requires researcher

Time to resolution

insufficient data

insufficient data

Venue lifecycle status on the card: active. No end date is stored.

Observable: Venue-supplied market end date or close time stored on the card

Missing input: The v0.2 card schema does not store an end date or close time, so time to resolution cannot be derived from this card.

Resolution reliability

heuristic

70 / 100 (descriptive)

Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed. Resolution rule text is stored on the card.

Observable: Resolution reliability pillar: review of the resolution source (0x65070BE91477460D8A7AeEb94ef92fe056C2f2A7) and stored resolution rule text

Caveats: resolved-outcome dispute history is not joined on this card; the read covers resolution source and rule text only; descriptive diagnostic from operator-set scoring that is not calibrated; no interval exists for this value, so none is shown rather than fabricated

Concentration exposure

insufficient data

insufficient data

Participant-flow screens flagged concentration, unknown-flow, or low-edge-flow conditions for review.

Observable: Participant-flow concentration from the card's integrity screen: top account flow share, unknown flow share, scored notional share

Missing input: Participant-flow concentration is not measured on this card (no scored participant rollup or no top-account flow share).

Basis-risk note

descriptive

structural note

This market settles as a binary event contract: it pays a fixed amount on one discrete resolution. Offsetting a continuous exposure with a binary payoff leaves residual basis risk by construction, and binary payoffs will generally fail the ASC 815 80-125% dollar-offset band used for hedge-accounting treatment, so a position that works as an economic offset can still be carried as mark-to-market P&L. This is a structural description of the contract type, not a statement about any party's exposure.

Observable: Contract payoff structure (binary event contract) and the resolution rule text stored on the card

Caveats: structural description of the contract type, not accounting or legal advice

Published deliberately as a component table with no single combined number. Read each component against the observable it derives from; an insufficient_data row means the stored card lacks that input, not that the check passed.

These diagnostics describe observable market-quality measurements for one market. They are not investment advice, not a trading instruction, not a recommendation to take or offset any exposure with this or any market, and not a statement about any person or their positions.

instrument_fitness_diagnostics_v0_1

Source freshness windowIngest status

The current ingest window is clean enough for review. This is freshness reporting, not an uptime SLA.

Latest orderbook

2026-08-07T15:00:22.729Z

most recent orderbook evidence attached to this card

Sources

1

1 healthy | 0 degraded | 0 stale | 0 failing

Dropped events

0

nonzero dropped events block current-language claims

Observed age

2s

oldest observed source watermark

Ingested age

732ms

oldest ingest watermark

Validation stateCanary vs v1

Canary pipeline

blocked

Current card has source, evidence, or robustness issues to clear.

Public v1 promotion

4 public v1 validation gates still open.

Canary readiness says the current batch can be reviewed. Public v1 promotion waits for coverage, clean source-health windows, resolved outcomes, and formula-freeze evidence.

Read the promotion evidence contract
  • Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
  • Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
  • The rating moves under leave-one-out or weight-perturbation checks.
  • 14 consecutive clean source-health days have not yet been observed.
  • 30 current cards across 3 market categories are not yet reached.
  • The scoring formula must be frozen before validation runs.
  • At least one resolved-outcome row is still needed in the validation ledger.
Top caveatsWhat travels with the score
  • Current card issue: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
  • Current card issue: Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
  • Current card issue: The rating moves under leave-one-out or weight-perturbation checks.
  • 29% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
  • artifact hashes present
  • below publishable sample floor
Before stable v1Validation requirements
  • 14 consecutive clean source-health days have not yet been observed.
  • 30 current cards across 3 market categories are not yet reached.
  • The scoring formula must be frozen before validation runs.
  • At least one resolved-outcome row is still needed in the validation ledger.
External contextNon-scoring provenance

External crypto baselines are identified for review but are not part of the Market Trust score.

Spot index / reference price

not integrated

Perpetual funding and basis

not integrated

Options-implied distribution

not integrated

External context is non-scoring in v0.2. Market Trust still measures market-quality substrate, not absolute truth against outside forecasts.

Full seven-pillar evidence grid

Coherence

weight 25 · measured

30 / 100

5 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 25 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

full provenance cme signal linkedsignal price observations linkedno observed checkpoint yet

Executability

weight 20 · heuristic

10 / 100

Executability scored as worse-of(spread, depth) from a single orderbook snapshot; the two were merged from the former liquidity + depth pillars to stop double-counting one correlated source.

executability worse of spread depthspread:top-of-book spread 20.4cspread:spread is 65% of mid, heavy slippage on size

Resolution reliability

weight 20 · heuristic

70 / 100

Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.

resolution metadata present manual review pending

Participant flow

weight 20 · pending

pending

Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.

below publishable sample flooredge score composite descriptive not skillhigh participant concentration

Integrity risk screen

weight 10 · heuristic

67 / 100

Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.

top-3 wallets control 95% of notional flow29% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedlyflow events:11

Audit completeness

weight 5 · measured

100 / 100

3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.

artifact hashes presentsource watermarks healthy
Coherence blockLinked-market consistency

5 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signals linked to this condition; 25 price-observation checkpoints recorded.

Score

30

measured evidence

Source refs

5

linked-market or CME artifacts

full provenance cme signal linked signal price observations linked no observed checkpoint yet

Robustness blockSensitivity and drivers

Sensitivity verdict

moves

leave-one-out and weight perturbation

Leave-one-out

35-55

score range

Weight perturbation

42-46

score range

Drivers

3

largest weighted contributors

  • Coherence scores below 60 and needs stronger evidence before the verdict can improve.
  • Executability is heuristic, not fully measured.
  • Executability scores below 60 and needs stronger evidence before the verdict can improve.
  • Resolution reliability is heuristic, not fully measured.
  • Participant flow is pending, not fully measured.
  • Integrity screen is heuristic, not fully measured.

Live market integrity read is a Trader feature

Trader ($499/mo) unlocks an on-demand participation-concentration read on any market — HHI of wallet volume shares with a confidence interval on every estimate, plus a round-trip self-churn share, computed live from the current flow tape. Descriptive structure with receipts, not a manipulation call.

Boundary of the packet

This packet is market diligence, not investment advice, not a claim of absolute truth, and not proof that any trader should buy or sell. It answers whether the market price has enough substrate to cite, monitor, discount, or ignore with receipts attached.