Market Trust diligence packet
Will Hyperliquid introduce KYC by September 30, 2026?
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
43 / 100
Interval 3-53
Evidence confidence
low
53 / 100
Source health
source gate passed
1 sources | dropped 0
Audit chain
6fa5a16bd8...
row hash verified
Memo language
Convexly rates this polymarket market "Will Hyperliquid introduce KYC by September 30, 2026?" as Do not cite.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.
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
Why this rating
Composite 43 · Do not cite
- Coherencemeasuredweight 25.0
1 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signal linked to this condition; 5 price-observation checkpoints recorded.
- · full provenance cme signal linked
- · signal price observations linked
- · no observed checkpoint yet
30+10.7 - Executabilityheuristicweight 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 23.2c
- · spread: spread is 127% 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+2.9 - Resolution reliabilityheuristicweight 20.0
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
- · resolution metadata present manual review pending
70+20.0 - Participant flowpendingweight 20.0
Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.
- · edge score composite descriptive not skill
- · high participant concentration
- · insufficient scored accounts
- · insufficient total accounts
n/ano contrib - Integrity risk screenpendingweight 10.0
Heavy concentration / wash-pattern signals; treat with caution.
- · top-3 wallets control 100% of notional flow
- · 100% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
- · flow events: 4
- · distinct wallets: 1
55no contrib - Audit completenessmeasuredweight 5.0
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
- · artifact hashes present
- · source watermarks healthy
100+7.1
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 = 70.0.
Caveat: 2 pillars pending; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.
Market identityWhat is being rated
Venue
polymarket
condition 0xc8b71f539dd7c9ed...
Category
Crypto
used for coverage and validation breadth
Market status
active
venue-provided lifecycle state when available
Resolution rule
This market will resolve to "Yes" if Hyperliquid officially implements KYC requirements for users by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". KYC is defined as a mandatory identity verification process — including but not limited to submission of legal name, government-issued ID, proof of address, or biometric verification — required for users to access core trading functionality on Hyperliquid (spot, perpetuals, or HyperCore). The requirement must be implemented by Hyperliquid itself, by the Hyperliquid Foundation, by Hyperliquid Labs, or via the official Hyperliquid frontend (app.hyperliquid.xyz) or any official successor frontend. Frontend-level KYC at app.hyperliquid.xyz qualifies regardless of whether the underlying Hyperliquid protocol remains permissionlessly accessible via direct contract interaction or third-party frontends. KYC enforced solely by third-party frontends, wallets, or fiat on-ramp partners does not qualify. Geofencing or IP-based restrictions alone do not qualify — the requirement must involve identity collection. Optional KYC offered in exchange for enhanced features (higher limits, lower fees, access to additional assets) does not qualify if base trading functionality remains accessible without verification. A pilot, beta, or rollout limited to a specific jurisdiction (e.g. US users only) does qualify, provided KYC is live and enforced for the targeted user group and the rollout is officially confirmed by Hyperliquid. An announcement, policy proposal, or governance vote without live enforcement does not qualify. Once KYC is live and enforced for at least one qualifying user cohort, this market will resolve to "Yes" — a subsequent reversal or rollback does not change resolution. If Hyperliquid announces KYC but does not enforce it on at least one live user cohort by the resolution date, this market will resolve to "No". The resolution source is official communications from Hyperliquid (https://x.com/HyperliquidX), the Hyperliquid Foundation, or the Hyperliquid Policy Center, corroborated by credible news sources.
card_id: mt-v02:polymarket:0xc8b71f539dd7c9eddeb6f55e8760956e65baa0d546425df0a06777957a9b53c9:2026-08-04
market_id: 350a9f38-e25e-4c28-886d-78158e898321
venue_market_id: 0xc8b71f539dd7c9eddeb6f55e8760956e65baa0d546425df0a06777957a9b53c9
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.
method: market_trust_card_v0_2
row_hash: 6fa5a16bd8c803f41f685edd8854952af7086765c697ea3be01c5b61da037bd2
previous_row_hash: 5d8dbd74f21d0d2f9b1937dca58dee856beb0ee14372819f884c80ddd24e34ce
source_artifact_hashes: 0e7ee88e0ed43ab7e3454a644ee3f6eea11871d019af790a143089341c77895f, 7fd12bbe5061b8d3b94df595763fce84bb19e2b2ccf386e96856f506a6ab5f46
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: 4dc4a7c7c10a6a0bd1576ed45f2804ac28bc7714d012b2bde1f78ec4174ad92d
How to verify this hash
- Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xc8b71f539dd7c9eddeb6f55e8760956e65baa0d546425df0a06777957a9b53c9/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
- Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xc8b71f539dd7c9eddeb6f55e8760956e65baa0d546425df0a06777957a9b53c9/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical" | shasum -a 256
- Compare your digest to archive_sha256 in the JSON response at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xc8b71f539dd7c9eddeb6f55e8760956e65baa0d546425df0a06777957a9b53c9/archive?venue=polymarket. Matching digests mean the archived verdict content is byte-for-byte unchanged.
- Cross-check card_row_hash against the stored full-card receipt at https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xc8b71f539dd7c9eddeb6f55e8760956e65baa0d546425df0a06777957a9b53c9/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
100%
1 scored accounts
Unknown flow
0%
higher unknown flow lowers confidence
Participants
1
public accounts observed
Top flow share
100%
concentration diagnostic
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 2026-08-04T06:45:24.893+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
2026-08-04T06:45:24.893Z
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
4s
oldest observed source watermark
Ingested age
790ms
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.
- 100% of wallet/side pairs appear repeatedly
- artifact hashes present
- depth:bid $0 / ask $0
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
1 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signal linked to this condition; 5 price-observation checkpoints recorded.
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.
Resolution reliability
weight 20 · heuristic
70 / 100
Resolution source and rule text are present but not independently reviewed.
Participant flow
weight 20 · pending
pending
Participant flow inputs exist but do not meet identity-coverage floors; descriptive only.
Integrity risk screen
weight 10 · pending
55 / 100
Heavy concentration / wash-pattern signals; treat with caution.
Audit completeness
weight 5 · measured
100 / 100
3 linked artifacts; 0 missing hashes; 0 stale/failing sources.
Coherence blockLinked-market consistency
1 full-provenance Coherent Markets Engine signal linked to this condition; 5 price-observation checkpoints recorded.
Score
30
measured evidence
Source refs
1
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
33-53
score range
Weight perturbation
41-44
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 pending, 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.