Market Trust diligence packet

Bitcoin Up or Down on August 9?

Do not citeUnder-measured: 1 of 6 pillarsMeasurement certainty Low
Current daily snapshot

1 of 6 pillars measured, 3 modeled by fixed rules, 2 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

Too much of the trading came from wallets we cannot yet identify, so participant-flow coverage is uncertain.

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

Market quality

65 / 100

Interval 30-77

Evidence confidence

low

51 / 100

Source health

source gate passed

1 sources | dropped 0

Audit chain

020d4ee80d...

row hash verified

Memo language

Convexly rates this polymarket market "Bitcoin Up or Down on August 9?" as Do not cite.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: participant quality pending elevated unknown flow. This is market diligence, not a trading instruction or proof that the market probability is correct.

Caveat to carry: participant quality pending elevated unknown flow.

Export

How to cite this market

Per Convexly Market Trust, an experimental market-quality diagnostic served as a research preview (status: canary_preview), the polymarket market "Bitcoin Up or Down on August 9?" is rated Do not cite (market quality 65 / 100; Interval 30-77) as of 2026-08-09T16:15:24.255Z (UTC). Caveat to carry: participant quality pending elevated unknown flow. Packet: https://www.convexly.app/market-trust/packet/polymarket/0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390. Verdict row hash (SHA-256): 020d4ee80d4be58868eb46ad14362a8b4239a9524eaac1d88489f86081c9dc99. This citation is market diligence, not investment advice, not a trading instruction, not a forecast, and not proof that the market probability is correct.

One unit: quote it whole, so the verdict travels with its caveat, its date and its receipt.

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 hard cap: participant quality pending elevated unknown flow.
  • Clear current blocker: Not enough pillars on this card are measured yet.
  • Clear current blocker: Some pillars on this card are still gathering evidence.
How the score adds upWhy this verdict
1 measured | 3 modeled | 2 not assessed

Why this rating

Composite 65 · Do not cite

Measurement certainty

Low

1 measured · 3 modeled · 2 not assessed

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

  • CoherenceModeled estimatefixed rules, not a per-market measurementweight 25.0

    No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.

    • · no linked cme signal in window
    • · absence of signal not proof of coherence
    • · cme signal window days: 7
    • · recent full provenance signals: 250
    50+20.8
  • ExecutabilityNot assessednot yet measured for this marketweight 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: one_sided_orderbook_boundary
    • · spread: direct_bid_ask_spread_missing
    • · spread: visible $1k ladder slippage 0pp
    65not assessed
  • 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+23.3
  • 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
    • · high unknown flow share
    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 77% of notional flow
    • · flow events: 22
    • · distinct wallets: 16
    • · wash round trips: 0
    75+12.5
  • Audit completenessMeasuredweight 5.0

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

    • · artifact hashes present
    • · source watermarks healthy
    100+8.3

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 = 60.0.

Caveat: 2 pillars not assessed yet; the score will recompute as the substrate fills in.

Market identityWhat is being rated

Venue

polymarket

condition 0xfa732327ce00c163...

Category

unmapped

used for coverage and validation breadth

Market status

active

venue-provided lifecycle state when available

Resolution rule

This market will resolve to "Up" if the "Close" price for the Binance 1 minute candle for BTC/USDT Aug 8 '26 12:00 in the ET timezone (noon) is lower than the final "Close" price for the Aug 9 '26 12:00 ET candle. This market will resolve to "Down" if the "Close" price for the Binance 1 minute candle for BTC/USDT Aug 8 '26 12:00 in the ET timezone (noon) is higher than the final "Close" price for the Aug 9 '26 12:00 ET candle. If the final "Close" price for both of these candles is exactly equal on Binance, this market will resolve 50-50. The resolution source for this market is Binance, specifically the BTC/USDT "Close" prices currently available at https://www.binance.com/en/trade/BTC_USDT with "1m" and "Candles" selected on the top bar. Please note that this market is about the price according to Binance BTC/USDT, not according to other exchanges or trading pairs.

Rules as stated by the venue, reproduced verbatim; not independently reviewed or endorsed by Convexly.

card_id: mt-v02:polymarket:0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390:2026-08-09

market_id: e9d3346b-3d63-4909-9b0d-7f1abdee73ab

venue_market_id: 0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390

resolution_source: https://www.binance.com/en/trade/BTC_USDT

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-v02:2026-08-09T16-15-24-255Z

method: market_trust_card_v0_2

row_hash: 020d4ee80d4be58868eb46ad14362a8b4239a9524eaac1d88489f86081c9dc99

previous_row_hash: 2a786b46a3ee63eb562d4aef5009cc4f28cf3dc7d1a5cc759fd7edb40b7ece23

source_artifact_hashes: 2d25455fa8c1d147f8db45923880a843252ecb5c9edfc44dce0f988d00211a74, cb6fe84bcd82ba42e27dc4b03c5639c2ab3a783d8de122af8ac760701723f12e

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: 11f6cdf97b33144392f4889aca6e1b6f9f7d95f3a6773e5beb357a793036761f

How to verify this hash
  1. Fetch the canonical archive bytes: https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390/archive?venue=polymarket&format=canonical
  2. Recompute the digest locally, for example: curl -s "https://www.convexly.app/api/market-trust/v0.2/0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390/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/v0.2/0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390/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/v0.2/0xfa732327ce00c163a44a199097b77197bd6c03c0c084fd28b8fd4aae1027f390/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 and concentration read

Signed in, this reads how concentrated Convexly's recorded flow in this market is: the share of observed notional attributable to the single largest account, how many distinct accounts appear in that record, and how much of the flow is attributable to accounts Convexly has already scored. It is an integrity-risk screen, not a manipulation accusation and not person-level identity resolution.

Those figures are computed on Convexly's recorded participant flow, which is a periodic sample of venue trades and not a complete trade record, so each one is a property of that sample rather than of the market. The figures are shown to signed-in viewers, for markets where the recorded sample was read in full.

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

Market Fitness - pre-trade diligence (experimental)

2 of 6 diagnostics have a derivable observable on this stored card; 4 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

insufficient data

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 2026-08-09T16:14:56.495+00:00

Missing input: The stored card has no measured or heuristic executability pillar value (no current orderbook spread or depth input).

Caveats: gated detail requires researcher

Spread and price impact

insufficient data

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

Missing input: The stored card has no current orderbook spread or modeled price-impact input.

Caveats: 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 (https://www.binance.com/en/trade/BTC_USDT) 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

Signed in, this reads how concentrated Convexly's recorded flow in this market is: the share of observed notional attributable to the single largest account, how many distinct accounts appear in that record, and how much of the flow is attributable to accounts Convexly has already scored. It is an integrity-risk screen, not a manipulation accusation and not person-level identity resolution. Those figures are computed on Convexly's recorded participant flow, which is a periodic sample of venue trades and not a complete trade record, so each one is a property of that sample rather than of the market. The figures are shown to signed-in viewers, for markets where the recorded sample was read in full.

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).

Caveats: participant figures signed in only

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

2026-08-09T16:14:56.495Z

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

765ms

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
  • Hard cap: participant quality pending elevated unknown flow.
  • 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.
  • absence of signal not proof of coherence
  • artifact hashes present
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 · heuristic

50 / 100

No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.

no linked cme signal in windowabsence of signal not proof of coherencecme signal window days:7

Executability

weight 20 · pending

65 / 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:one sided orderbook boundaryspread:direct bid ask spread missing

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

75 / 100

Mild concentration or coordination signals; review before citing.

top-3 wallets control 77% of notional flowflow events:22distinct wallets:16

Audit completeness

weight 5 · measured

100 / 100

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

artifact hashes presentsource watermarks healthy
Coherence blockLinked-market consistency

No full-provenance CME signal is linked to this condition in the current ledger window; absence of a signal is not proof of coherence.

Score

50

heuristic evidence

Source refs

0

linked-market or CME artifacts

no linked cme signal in window absence of signal not proof of coherence cme signal window days:7 recent full provenance signals:250

Robustness blockSensitivity and drivers

Sensitivity verdict

moves

leave-one-out and weight perturbation

Leave-one-out

63-72

score range

Weight perturbation

64-66

score range

Drivers

3

largest weighted contributors

  • Coherence is heuristic, not fully measured.
  • Coherence scores below 60 and needs stronger evidence before the verdict can improve.
  • Executability is pending, not fully measured.
  • 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 Convexly's recorded participant flow. That record is a periodic sample of venue trades, not a complete trade record, so the read describes the sample. 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.