{ "schemaVersion": 1, "course": { "title": "University of El Segundo · Prediction Markets Superstudy", "version": "1.0.0", "asOf": "2026-10-03", "purpose": "A public, self-paced course from probability literacy to advanced market analysis and execution concepts. Every worked number is invented for education.", "syntheticOnly": true, "quizNotice": "Checkpoints are learning aids, not a certification, trading qualification, or test of legal eligibility.", "paperNotice": "Use synthetic inputs and paper records only. This course does not open accounts, move money, connect wallets, place orders, or authorize a live strategy. A favorable paper result does not establish an achievable return.", "sourceNotice": "Time-sensitive venue, product, access, legal, API, and data-rights claims must be checked against the accompanying dated official-source ledger. Software availability, contractual permission, legal status, and individual account eligibility are separate questions.", "learningPath": [ { "stage": "Build the foundation", "modules": [ "market-map", "bayes", "calibration", "settlement" ] }, { "stage": "Evaluate the whole decision", "modules": [ "microstructure", "bankroll", "research", "integrity" ] }, { "stage": "Study advanced systems and uncertainty", "modules": [ "architecture", "perpetuals", "landscape", "scenarios-2027" ] } ], "modules": [ { "id": "market-map", "title": "What an event contract actually pays", "level": "Beginner", "minutes": 30, "objectives": [ "Translate a synthetic binary contract into a cash-flow table.", "Distinguish a probability estimate, a quoted price, and a realized outcome.", "Separate event contracts from perpetual derivatives and separate access from permission." ], "paragraphs": [ "Begin with the payoff, not the headline. In this course a synthetic YES unit costs a stated amount now and pays $1 if a precisely defined event resolves YES, or $0 if it resolves NO. This is a teaching convention; real contracts can have different settlement rules, fees, cancellations, and remedies. Owning the YES side does not guarantee that the popular interpretation of a headline will be the event that actually settles.", "A price of $0.60 can be a useful starting point for discussing a 60% probability, but it is not proof of that probability. Fees, spreads, risk preferences, position constraints, limited participation, and scarce liquidity can all create a gap between a quote and an aggregate belief. A last trade is historical; an ask is a price someone is offering; your own probability is a forecast that can be wrong. These three objects should have different labels in a paper journal.", "An event contract resolves under a rulebook. A perpetual derivative generally tracks an underlying exposure without a fixed expiry and can involve margin, funding, and forced liquidation. Neither an advertisement nor an API endpoint establishes that a particular person in California can access a particular product. Keep four independent checkboxes: what the product is, what the contract permits, what current law and regulator records say, and whether the account holder meets current eligibility requirements." ], "workedExample": { "title": "Synthetic YES cash flows", "paragraphs": [ "Buy 10 imaginary YES units for $0.60 each with no fee. The cost is $6. A YES settlement pays $10, leaving $4 net; a NO settlement pays $0, leaving a $6 loss. If your probability is 65%, the expected payout is $6.50 and the expected net is $0.50. Expected net is an average over an assumed probability model, not a promise that this position earns fifty cents.", "If the same $0.60 quote appeared yesterday but today's available ask is $0.66, the old calculation is not executable. At your unchanged 65% forecast, the gross expected net on 10 units becomes -$0.10 before any fee. The payoff did not change; the available cost did." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Build a payoff card", "steps": [ "Invent one binary event, a $1 YES payoff, a price, and a quantity. Label every value synthetic.", "Write initial cash paid, cash received under YES, cash received under NO, and the net for each outcome.", "Add a personal probability assumption and calculate expected net. Then raise the assumed ask by $0.05 and repeat.", "List what you would still need to verify before this could describe a real contract: rules, settlement source, fees, access, and legal and contractual permissions. Do not create an account or order." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "What does an advertised price or working API establish about an individual's legal eligibility?", "options": [ "It proves eligibility for every product.", "It proves eligibility if the company is US based.", "It does not establish eligibility; product, terms, law, and account requirements need separate verification." ], "correctIndex": 2, "explanation": "A product claim or software interface is evidence about that claim or interface. It does not answer all the questions that control lawful, permitted account access." } }, { "id": "bayes", "title": "Base rates, evidence, and Bayes", "level": "Beginner", "minutes": 40, "objectives": [ "Choose a relevant reference class before reacting to a vivid signal.", "Distinguish P(evidence | event) from P(event | evidence).", "Update a prior using explicit likelihood assumptions and test sensitivity." ], "paragraphs": [ "A base rate is the frequency of an event in a relevant reference class. The difficult part is choosing a class that is comparable to the present situation: similar definitions, incentives, observation windows, and data quality. A striking anecdote does not erase a base rate. Begin a forecast with the class, the sample size, the uncertainty, and the reasons the current case might differ.", "Bayes' rule is P(H | E) = P(H)P(E | H) / [P(H)P(E | H) + (1 - P(H))P(E | not H)]. The probability that a signal appears when an event is true is not the probability that the event is true after seeing the signal. Both the true-signal rate and the false-signal rate matter. If the evidence has zero probability under both possibilities, the supplied model cannot update; the posterior is undefined.", "Likelihood inputs are often estimates rather than measured constants. Report a range when the signal quality is uncertain, and avoid counting the same evidence twice. Two articles repeating one source are not two independent confirmations. When evidence arrives over time, document the information available at each update so a later result cannot silently rewrite the earlier forecast." ], "workedExample": { "title": "A rare event and an imperfect signal", "paragraphs": [ "Assume a synthetic event has a 20% prior. A signal appears with 80% probability if the event is true and 10% if it is false. The YES evidence mass is 0.20 × 0.80 = 0.16; the NO evidence mass is 0.80 × 0.10 = 0.08. The posterior is 0.16 / 0.24 = 66.67%.", "If the false-signal rate was actually 30%, the posterior becomes 0.16 / (0.16 + 0.24) = 40%. The same dramatic signal can imply a very different forecast when its reliability changes. If both likelihoods are zero, no posterior should be displayed as a number." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Write an evidence ledger", "steps": [ "Choose a synthetic prior and record the reference class that would justify it.", "Enter hypothetical true-signal and false-signal likelihoods into the Bayes calculator.", "Change each likelihood across a plausible assumed range and record how much the posterior moves.", "Describe one pair of signals that shares a source and explain why treating them as independent would overstate confidence." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "With a 20% prior, 80% true-signal rate, and 10% false-signal rate, what is the updated probability?", "options": [ "80%, because that is the signal's true-positive rate.", "About 66.67%, after weighting both hypotheses.", "20%, because evidence can never change a base rate." ], "correctIndex": 1, "explanation": "The denominator includes evidence generated under both the event and its complement: 0.16 / (0.16 + 0.08)." } }, { "id": "calibration", "title": "Forecast journals, calibration, and Brier scores", "level": "Beginner", "minutes": 40, "objectives": [ "Score recorded binary forecasts without rewriting them after settlement.", "Distinguish calibration from discrimination and profitability.", "Recognize sample size, selection, and dependence limits in a forecast record." ], "paragraphs": [ "A calibrated forecaster's 70% forecasts should resolve YES roughly 70% of the time across a sufficiently informative collection of comparable predictions. Calibration is a property of a collection, not an individual event. A 90% forecast that resolves NO is not automatically a bad forecast; persistent underestimation of the remaining 10% is. Keep time-stamped forecasts, definitions, revisions, and outcomes before calculating scores.", "For binary outcomes y in {0, 1}, the Brier score is the mean of (p - y)². Lower is better, with 0 for perfect predictions and 1 for completely confident wrong predictions. Honest probabilities minimize expected Brier loss under the forecaster's belief. That does not mean a tiny observed score difference proves skill. Compare with a relevant baseline, such as an available base-rate forecast made with the same information, and study uncertainty rather than just a leaderboard.", "Calibration asks whether stated frequencies match observed frequencies. Discrimination asks whether higher forecasts tend to identify the events that happen. A forecaster can be calibrated yet uninformative by assigning a suitable common base rate to everything. Profitability is a further question involving the available price, fees, execution, and size. Do not infer trading ability from a quiz score or a small, selected paper sample." ], "workedExample": { "title": "Four synthetic predictions", "paragraphs": [ "Forecasts [0.70, 0.20, 0.60, 0.80] resolve [1, 0, 1, 0]. Their squared errors are [0.09, 0.04, 0.16, 0.64], giving a Brier score of 0.2325. A constant 50% forecast scores 0.25 on these same four events. The observed improvement is 0.0175, but four events cannot establish durable forecasting skill.", "The single 80% forecast that resolved NO contributes 0.64 to the total error. Removing that inconvenient prediction after the fact would bias the score. If the four questions were about one common underlying event, treating them as four independent observations would also exaggerate the amount of evidence." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Create a frozen forecasting journal", "steps": [ "Invent ten questions with precise YES definitions, forecast dates, probabilities, and resolution dates.", "Assign synthetic outcomes only after freezing the probabilities. Calculate the mean Brier score.", "Compare with a 50% baseline and a second stated base-rate baseline on the same questions.", "Group the forecasts into broad probability bands. Discuss why ten observations are too few for a stable calibration curve and identify any common underlying events." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "A forecaster beats a baseline on four invented events. What can that result establish?", "options": [ "A durable profitable strategy.", "A trading certification.", "A small observed score difference that needs more independent evidence." ], "correctIndex": 2, "explanation": "Brier performance measures forecast error on the selected record. It neither removes sampling uncertainty nor includes execution costs." } }, { "id": "settlement", "title": "Read the contract before forecasting it", "level": "Beginner", "minutes": 45, "objectives": [ "Extract the controlling question, deadline, timezone, and resolution source.", "Distinguish real-world ambiguity from a contract's specified settlement procedure.", "Model oracle, correction, cancellation, and dispute risk." ], "paragraphs": [ "Your model must predict the event defined in the contract. Read the complete question and rulebook: what observation counts, which source controls, what time and timezone close the window, whether a first release or a revised value matters, and whether rounding changes the threshold. A headline such as 'above 100' leaves unanswered whether exactly 100 qualifies, which measurement is used, and whether a correction published later can change settlement.", "An oracle is a mechanism that brings external facts into a settlement process. It might be an exchange's determination under its rules or a decentralized proposal and challenge procedure. Neither design removes the need to inspect who supplies evidence, who can object, what incentives apply, how long disputes take, and what exceptional outcomes are possible. The course does not assume that one venue's oracle or appeal rights apply to another.", "Settlement risk belongs in the analysis even when your real-world forecast is excellent. Ambiguous wording, source outages, delayed publication, revisions, canceled events, and disputes can alter the payout or tie up paper capital longer than expected. A course summary cannot replace the controlling rulebook. Preserve its dated version and record uncertainties before assigning a probability." ], "workedExample": { "title": "One event, two synthetic contracts", "paragraphs": [ "Contract A pays YES if an imaginary agency's first published index is strictly greater than 100 at 10:00 UTC on a specified date. Contract B uses the revised index published a week later and pays YES at 100 or greater. The first release is 100.0; the revised release is 100.2. A resolves NO and B resolves YES under these invented rules, although both headlines might say 'Index reaches 100.'", "Now suppose the source publishes late. No payout can be inferred from this example alone. The separate outage, delay, and cancellation clauses determine how each contract handles the missing observation. An unsupported assumption about those clauses is a model error." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Draft a contract audit card", "steps": [ "Write a synthetic contract with one threshold, one authoritative source, one observation time, and one timezone.", "Specify strict versus inclusive comparison, first versus revised publication, and rounding rules.", "Add hypothetical outage, postponement, cancellation, dispute, and finality procedures. Mark every procedure as invented.", "Give a second learner three borderline facts and compare settlement decisions. Rewrite any wording that produces disagreement." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "A first release is exactly 100; a contract requires the first release to be strictly greater than 100. What is the outcome under these synthetic rules?", "options": [ "YES because 100 reaches the threshold.", "NO because strictly greater excludes equality.", "YES if a later revision rises above 100." ], "correctIndex": 1, "explanation": "The controlling first-release and strict-comparison clauses decide the example. A later revision does not count unless the contract says it does." } }, { "id": "microstructure", "title": "Spreads, depth, fees, slippage, and expected value", "level": "Intermediate", "minutes": 55, "objectives": [ "Distinguish the best bid, best ask, last trade, and available depth.", "Calculate fee-adjusted expected value and weighted price across a synthetic ask book.", "Recognize partial fills and why a static paper fill overstates execution certainty." ], "paragraphs": [ "The bid is a quoted buying price and the ask is a quoted selling price. Their difference is the spread. Depth is the quantity offered at each price, not a promise that the quantity survives until an order arrives. A last-trade chart can be stale, while a midprice may lie between quotes where no immediate transaction is offered. Keep price freshness, bid and ask sides, and quantities explicit in every exercise.", "For a synthetic YES unit paying $1 or $0, with your probability p, purchase price c, and fixed fee f paid per unit regardless of outcome, expected net per unit is p - c - f. For q units, multiply by q. Break-even probability is c + f, which can exceed 100%; do not clamp it into an apparently attainable forecast. Real fee schedules may depend on price, outcome, order type, or other terms and need their own verified calculation.", "Walking an ask book increases the average cost when the cheapest depth is exhausted. Fees, queue position, cancellations, latency, adverse selection, and market movement create further differences between a displayed opportunity and a fill. A limit order can remain unfilled; an immediate order can use only the depth that actually exists. The calculator uses a frozen synthetic book, returns incomplete fills honestly, and cannot estimate live execution quality." ], "workedExample": { "title": "Synthetic execution changes the edge", "paragraphs": [ "An invented ask book offers 10 units at $0.54, then 20 at $0.56, then 10 at $0.60. Requesting 25 units consumes 10 at $0.54 and 15 at $0.56. Total cost is $13.80 and the average price is $0.552, or $0.012 above the best ask. If only the first two levels exist and you request 50, just 30 are available; the missing 20 do not receive an invented fill.", "Separately, p = 0.62, c = $0.55, f = $0.02, and q = 20 give an expected payout of $12.40, cost of $11.40, and expected net of $1.00. With p = 0.56 at the same cost, expected net is -$0.20 for 20 units. A one-cent apparent gross edge has been erased by a two-cent fee. These probabilities and costs are assumptions, not venue quotes." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Challenge a displayed opportunity", "steps": [ "Invent an ascending ask book with three price levels and a finite quantity at each.", "Calculate average price for a small request, a larger request, and a request beyond total depth.", "Use a stated probability assumption and synthetic per-unit fee to calculate expected net at the achieved average price.", "Remove the cheapest level, add a higher fee, and lower your probability by five percentage points. Record which assumption changes the conclusion." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "Your probability is 56%, the price is $0.55, and a fixed synthetic fee is $0.02 per unit. What is expected net per unit?", "options": [ "+$0.01.", "-$0.01.", "+$0.56." ], "correctIndex": 1, "explanation": "0.56 - 0.55 - 0.02 = -0.01. A positive difference between forecast and price can disappear after costs." } }, { "id": "bankroll", "title": "Correlation, drawdowns, and the limits of Kelly", "level": "Intermediate", "minutes": 60, "objectives": [ "Distinguish independent losses from several positions sharing one underlying risk.", "Calculate compounded drawdown and the gain needed to recover.", "Understand the analytical Kelly formula and why its assumptions are fragile." ], "paragraphs": [ "Ten contracts are not ten independent risks if they all depend on one election, announcement, data release, or settlement source. Positive correlation can make losses cluster. Capital may also remain unavailable while events settle or disputes resolve. List exposure by underlying driver and by shared infrastructure failure, then stress simultaneous losses. Counting contract names is not a diversification analysis.", "If a paper portfolio loses fraction r of its remaining capital on each of n consecutive losing exercises, the drawdown is 1 - (1 - r)^n. At r = 10% and n = 5, the loss is 40.951%, not 50%; the remaining capital is 59.049% of the start. Recovering a drawdown d requires a gain of d / (1 - d) on the remaining capital. Losing half requires doubling what remains. This arithmetic does not estimate the probability of a losing streak or guarantee that ruin is avoided.", "For one idealized binary wager with total cost c per $1 unit, 0 < c < 1, probability p, and net win odds b = (1 - c) / c, expected log wealth is p ln(1 + bf) + (1 - p) ln(1 - f), where f is the fraction of capital exposed to a complete loss. The unconstrained Kelly optimum is f* = (pb - (1 - p)) / b = (p - c) / (1 - c). This is an analytical result under known probabilities, repeatability, and the assumed payoff and cost. It is not a recommended position size. Estimation error, correlated exposures, changing opportunities, capital locks, execution limits, and different preferences undermine those assumptions; a negative formula does not authorize shorting." ], "workedExample": { "title": "A paper edge with correlated downside", "paragraphs": [ "Assume p = 0.60 and c = 0.50 in the idealized formula. The analytical f* is (0.60 - 0.50) / 0.50 = 20%. If p was actually 0.51, the same formula gives 2%; if p was 0.49, the long-only assumed advantage disappears. A small forecasting error can produce a large sizing error.", "Now invent three contracts tied to the same announcement and allocate 10% of the starting paper portfolio to each. If all lose together, 30% of starting capital is lost. That is different from three sequential 10% losses calculated on shrinking capital, which lose 27.1%. A common event can invalidate an independence-based ruin model even when individual expected values look attractive." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Map common shocks", "steps": [ "Create five invented contracts and label their common event, data source, and settlement infrastructure.", "Assign hypothetical paper allocations solely to compare scenarios; do not treat them as a proposed personal bankroll plan.", "Calculate a simultaneous common-shock loss and a sequence of shrinking-capital losses. Explain the difference.", "Derive the Kelly optimum on paper, perturb p by ±0.05, and list at least four assumptions that prevent the formula from becoming a personalized recommendation." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "What is the drawdown after five losses of 10% of remaining paper capital?", "options": [ "50%.", "40.951%.", "10%." ], "correctIndex": 1, "explanation": "Remaining capital is 0.9^5 = 0.59049 of the start, so drawdown is 1 - 0.59049 = 0.40951. This is conditional loss arithmetic, not a streak probability." } }, { "id": "research", "title": "Strategy hypotheses and honest backtests", "level": "Intermediate", "minutes": 60, "objectives": [ "Write a falsifiable hypothesis with an explicit information timestamp.", "Detect look-ahead leakage, selection bias, and repeated testing.", "Evaluate forecast quality and paper execution separately." ], "paragraphs": [ "A hypothesis specifies why an observable signal could predict a defined event better than a relevant baseline. Record the signal, available timestamp, forecast rule, comparison, and criteria that would count against the idea before examining outcomes. 'Buy things that went up' is not a complete hypothesis; the information set, timing, costs, and failure conditions are missing. Make the initial research claim small enough to be disproved.", "Look-ahead leakage occurs when a historical decision uses information that was unavailable at the decision time, including later revisions, final settlement text, future categories, or cleaned data published afterward. Survivorship and selection bias occur when vanished, canceled, illiquid, or losing markets disappear from the sample. Trying many variations and reporting only the winner turns random noise into apparent skill. Keep a record of all tested ideas and reserve genuinely untouched observations.", "Split evaluation forward in time and separate related events across training and evaluation when necessary. Fit transformations on training data only. Use only data whose collection and research uses are permitted; a visible quote or downloadable API field is not an unrestricted license. Report assumptions about missing observations, executable prices, costs, partial fills, and capital locks. A paper backtest can support a research hypothesis under those assumptions, but cannot reproduce queue position, market impact, or actual obligations." ], "workedExample": { "title": "The revision that leaks the answer", "paragraphs": [ "A synthetic model makes a forecast at 09:00 using an index first released at 10:00. Its historical table contains the final revised value published one week later. A strong measured result is invalid for the 09:00 decision: neither release was then available, and the revised value is especially revealing. Shift the forecast timestamp or replace the feature with a correctly time-stamped input.", "Suppose a researcher evaluates 100 random rule variations and reports only the best. Even without leakage, selection can make that rule look persuasive in the original sample. A locked forward evaluation of the selected rule, plus a record of the 99 alternatives, is more informative than repeatedly tuning against the same holdout." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Pre-register a synthetic research test", "steps": [ "Write one hypothesis, one fixed forecast rule, one baseline, and a rejection condition before generating outcomes.", "Create a small synthetic table with forecast time, source publication time, and later revision time.", "Flag any feature that was unavailable at forecast time. Hold out the last time segment without tuning on it.", "Report forecast error separately from hypothetical fill-adjusted net. Include failed variations, missing observations, and assumptions." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "A backtest uses a value revised a week after the historical forecast time. What is the central problem?", "options": [ "The feature leaks future information into the decision.", "Revisions always make a model more reliable.", "There is no problem if the final result is profitable." ], "correctIndex": 0, "explanation": "Historical features must match what was available at the stated decision time. A later revision cannot be silently substituted into that information set." } }, { "id": "integrity", "title": "Market integrity, insider restrictions, and data ethics", "level": "Intermediate", "minutes": 45, "objectives": [ "Recognize manipulative activity and avoid making it a strategy hypothesis.", "Treat nonpublic information, event influence, and role-specific restrictions as review triggers.", "Separate public visibility, API access, redistribution rights, and AI-use permissions." ], "paragraphs": [ "Market integrity is a prerequisite for learning from prices. Spoofed displayed interest, wash trading, misleading statements, coordinated distortion, and interference with an event or resolution process can damage that information. An apparent price anomaly is not permission to create one. This course studies how suspicious behavior degrades evidence and execution; it does not provide tactics for manipulation or evasion.", "Inside information and conflicts require particular care in event markets. Rules may restrict people with material nonpublic information, influence over the event or settlement, or specified roles such as officials and participants. Applicable law and each venue's current rules need separate review. Do not infer that everything is permitted merely because a restriction familiar from securities markets has a different name or scope here. A course cannot provide legal clearance for a personal situation.", "Data rights are equally specific. Permission to call an API can differ from permission to retain quotes, share them with third parties, republish them, train a model, or feed them into an AI service. Terms can impose attribution, retention, rate, commercial-use, and AI-use restrictions. This public course uses invented inputs; it must not ingest licensed venue quotes into an LLM or publish them without verified permission. Public factual descriptions can be sourced separately without building a redistributed market feed." ], "workedExample": { "title": "An information advantage that needs review", "paragraphs": [ "In a fictional exercise, a person receives a confidential announcement draft before its scheduled public release. Another person can directly influence the event's reported outcome. Both situations require checking the applicable restrictions and conflict policies before any real participation; an expected-value calculation does not answer that question. In the classroom, replace the confidential document with a clearly synthetic fact pattern.", "A separate fictional API returns a price after a successful request, while its license forbids third-party redistribution and AI input. Technical success does not remove those restrictions. The public course should use a made-up price and teach the data flow with a diagram rather than forwarding the licensed response to an LLM or publishing it." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Create a data and integrity checklist", "steps": [ "For an invented research dataset, list collection, retention, analysis, AI input, redistribution, and display as separate uses.", "Mark the permission evidence needed for each use and leave unresolved items unresolved.", "Write a synthetic conflict scenario involving influence over an event. Identify why forecast quality cannot resolve the conflict.", "Describe how a paper study would exclude suspicious, improperly obtained, or unlicensed material while preserving a record of the exclusion." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "A public API responds successfully, but its terms restrict AI input and redistribution. Which conclusion follows?", "options": [ "Successful access overrides the terms.", "The response can be published if the code is educational.", "The intended AI and publication uses need permission; technical access alone is insufficient." ], "correctIndex": 2, "explanation": "Technical capability and contractual rights are separate. The exercise can remain useful with synthetic data while permission is unresolved." } }, { "id": "architecture", "title": "Advanced execution architecture, simulated only", "level": "Advanced", "minutes": 65, "objectives": [ "Explain a simulated order lifecycle and why intent differs from a confirmed fill.", "Design validation, idempotency, reconciliation, and failure handling conceptually.", "Identify the gap between a paper simulator and a live execution system." ], "paragraphs": [ "A rigorous paper system separates permitted input data, a versioned forecast, a proposed paper action, pre-action checks, simulated matching, a position ledger, and reconciliation. Keep forecasts and execution assumptions distinct. A read-only concept diagram can show where a permitted public fact might enter, but this course does not create credentials, attach accounts, connect a wallet, or provide a live-order connector. No helper here can reach a venue.", "Model order states explicitly: proposed, rejected, acknowledged, partially filled, filled, canceled, and unresolved. A request timeout means the status is unknown, not necessarily that nothing happened. Idempotency and durable intent identifiers prevent a retry from becoming a duplicate action; reconciliation compares recorded intentions, reported fills, positions, and cash. Out-of-order messages, stale snapshots, duplicate events, and cancel-fill races belong in a simulated failure exercise before any operational claim.", "A static simulator cannot recreate queue priority, hidden liquidity, adverse selection, latency, venue downtime, market impact, real capital constraints, or legal and contractual obligations. Advanced study means making these limits explicit and testing accounting invariants, not declaring paper gains achievable. Conceptual controls include bounded inputs, permission checks, stale-data handling, audit trails, human review, and stopping when state cannot be reconciled. Their design is not authorization for autonomous trading." ], "workedExample": { "title": "The timeout and the duplicate paper intent", "paragraphs": [ "A fictional paper request carries intent ID study-001 for 10 units. The simulator records a four-unit fill but the reply is delayed. If a retry is treated as a new 10-unit request, the paper ledger can overstate the intended exposure. Using the same intent ID and reconciling the four-unit fill preserves one request with six units still unresolved.", "Suppose a cancellation message arrives after a two-unit additional fill. A correct simulated ledger records six units filled and four canceled, with cash equal to the sum of fill costs plus the modeled fees. Marking the whole request canceled would erase valid fills and create a false portfolio." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Reconcile a synthetic event log", "steps": [ "Draw a paper-only data-flow diagram from synthetic inputs through a forecast, intent log, simulator, and position ledger.", "Write a 10-unit order story with a partial fill, timeout, duplicate reply, later fill, and cancellation.", "Assign stable IDs and timestamps. Reconcile filled plus canceled plus unresolved quantity with the original requested quantity.", "State which live effects the simulator omits and why no result from this exercise establishes executable returns." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "A request times out after submission in a conceptual execution system. What should the system assume?", "options": [ "No action could have occurred, so a fresh request is always safe.", "The status is unresolved and must be reconciled using the original intent identifier.", "The request must have fully filled." ], "correctIndex": 1, "explanation": "A missing response does not establish the underlying state. Reconciliation and stable identifiers prevent unknown status from becoming duplicate exposure." } }, { "id": "perpetuals", "title": "Perpetuals: funding, leverage, and liquidation stress", "level": "Advanced", "minutes": 65, "objectives": [ "Distinguish leveraged perpetual exposure from a bounded-payoff event unit.", "Calculate synthetic long equity, funding costs, and a terminal maintenance test.", "Explain path-dependent liquidation and how losses may exceed posted margin." ], "paragraphs": [ "A perpetual derivative generally has no fixed expiry and uses mechanisms such as funding to support its relationship with an underlying reference. Funding may be paid or received and can change over time. Initial margin is collateral against a larger notional position; it is not the full size of the exposure. Mark-price rules, index composition, maintenance tiers, liquidation procedures, fees, and deficit treatment must be read for the exact product. An advertisement showing leverage proves none of those details or an individual's eligibility.", "The synthetic calculator models one linear long held to a terminal observation. Initial notional N = collateral C × leverage L. For an underlying return m, P&L = N × m. Constant funding is N × (funding basis points / 10,000) × periods, charged on initial notional. Terminal equity is C + P&L - funding; terminal maintenance is ending notional × maintenance percentage. Equity at or below that threshold is flagged as a breach in this invented model. It does not calculate a real liquidation price, simulate early closing, or use any venue's margin engine.", "Linear price P&L does not make leveraged risk simple. Funding, changing maintenance, gaps, forced liquidation, fees, and the inability to survive an adverse path can create discontinuous and path-dependent losses. A position that ends with positive equity may already have crossed maintenance and been closed earlier. During a gap or a failed close, losses can exceed posted collateral and an account may owe a deficit depending on the product and its rules. This chapter is a stress exercise, not evidence that the user has opted into or can access live perpetuals." ], "workedExample": { "title": "$1,000 and 6.1×, strictly hypothetical", "paragraphs": [ "Invent C = $1,000, L = 6.1, and a long notional of $6,100. Charge 10 basis points per period for three periods on the initial notional, giving $18.30 funding. A -10% underlying move produces -$610 P&L and $371.70 equity. With synthetic maintenance at 5% of the $5,490 ending notional, the threshold is $274.50; the terminal check is not breached.", "At -12%, equity is $249.70 and synthetic maintenance is $268.40, so the terminal check is breached even though equity is positive. At -20%, the model's terminal equity is -$238.30, a hypothetical deficit beyond the original collateral. These terminal calculations deliberately assume no earlier close; they are stress outcomes rather than a model of actual liquidation. A real path, rulebook, mark, funding schedule, and deficit policy could produce different results." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Stress the path as well as the endpoint", "steps": [ "Use invented collateral, leverage, maintenance percentage, and constant funding basis points. Label the position a synthetic long.", "Compare -5%, -10%, -12%, and -20% terminal moves. Record equity, maintenance, and any hypothetical deficit.", "Draw a path that falls sharply and then recovers to the same terminal price as a calm path. Explain why an endpoint calculator cannot establish survival.", "Change funding from a cost to a receipt, then add a larger cost. List which real product terms would be needed to assess liquidation and any obligation beyond collateral." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "Does positive terminal equity prove that a leveraged position could not have been liquidated earlier?", "options": [ "Yes, because only the final price matters.", "Yes, if the forecast was ultimately correct.", "No; maintenance can be breached along the path and a forced close can occur before recovery." ], "correctIndex": 2, "explanation": "A terminal arithmetic check lacks the intervening mark prices, funding, maintenance rules, and liquidation actions. Path survival is a separate question." } }, { "id": "landscape", "title": "Read the 2026 landscape with an evidence matrix", "level": "Advanced", "minutes": 50, "objectives": [ "Compare products and venues with dated primary evidence rather than brand associations.", "Keep US and California access, global products, API approval, and data rights separate.", "Identify which assertions remain unresolved and need a fresh official check." ], "paragraphs": [ "A current venue comparison is an evidence matrix, not a ranking of where to trade. Each row needs the exact legal entity and product, contract type, governing rules, settlement process, geographic and individual eligibility, fee basis, API availability, production approval requirements, and data-use permissions. Date the evidence and distinguish a regulator record, binding terms, developer documentation, marketing, and your inference. An official source can answer only the questions it actually covers.", "Treat global Polymarket and Polymarket US as separate product and eligibility reviews; one name does not transfer access conditions between them. For Kalshi, review the current contract rules, account requirements, API and data terms, regulator materials, and California-specific product disputes in the dated source ledger. A sports-contract legal proceeding does not automatically decide every non-sports contract, API permission, or person's access. Where production permission or AI/data rights are unresolved, keep the claim unresolved rather than replacing it with a yes.", "Adjacent services belong in clearly labeled comparison rows. A crypto-routing API such as Jupiter raises software-license and data-use questions that are different from a blanket conclusion about every spot transaction. A paper environment such as Alpaca's is an infrastructure comparison, not evidence that it hosts the same event contracts. Recheck product advertising against official product pages and regulator records. A claim about the 'first US perpetuals exchange' needs an exact product definition, date, relevant authorization, and access terms before it becomes course fact." ], "workedExample": { "title": "Five separate findings, no false clearance", "paragraphs": [ "In a fictional matrix, a venue's documentation confirms that a retail API exists. Its production approval status for an intended integration is unresolved; its data license restricts redistribution; the user's jurisdiction needs review; and the exact advertised perpetual product has not been matched to an official rulebook. The correct summary is one verified software fact plus four separately described open questions, not 'approved for trading.'", "Another fictional row confirms a permitted paper-only software environment. That answers a learning-infrastructure question. It neither verifies access to the first venue nor grants rights to copy the first venue's market feed into it. Use synthetic prices across the public exercises while the comparison is researched." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Audit a dated venue row", "steps": [ "Use the accompanying official-source ledger to choose one product row; do not infer permission from its brand or advertisement.", "Record exact entity, product, source date, source type, claim supported, and claim not answered.", "Keep technical API availability, production approval, contractual data rights, legal status, and individual eligibility in separate cells.", "Mark unresolved issues and a recheck date. Describe a synthetic classroom alternative that remains usable without quotes, accounts, or production access." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "Official documentation confirms an API exists. Which additional statement is justified by that fact alone?", "options": [ "Every user may trade every product through it.", "Its quotes may be fed into any LLM and republished.", "None of those permissions follows without separate evidence." ], "correctIndex": 2, "explanation": "Availability establishes an interface exists. Production approval, permitted use, geography, law, and account requirements each need their own evidence." } }, { "id": "scenarios-2027", "title": "Conditional 2027 scenarios and a capstone", "level": "Advanced", "minutes": 70, "objectives": [ "Describe conditional 2027 scenarios without presenting them as forecasts or facts.", "Assign observable triggers, disconfirming evidence, and update dates to each scenario.", "Integrate probability, settlement, execution, integrity, and permission analysis in a paper capstone." ], "paragraphs": [ "Scenario 1: Broader regulated distribution. If more exchanges and brokers expose event contracts in 2027, access channels and product differences may become more important to study. Observable triggers: New CFTC registrations or designation amendments; Official broker and exchange notices; API releases and documented onboarding changes. Uncertainty: Hypothetical scenario, not a forecast. No probability assigned; it can coexist with restrictions and does not imply personal eligibility.", "Scenario 2: Access fragments by state or contract category. If disputes and rule changes persist, 2027 access may vary more by state, sports versus other events, or user class. Observable triggers: Published court orders; State regulator notices; Venue rule changes or contract withdrawals; Current geolocation-policy changes. Uncertainty: No legal outcome is assumed. An allegation is not a judgment; a case in one state does not establish another state's rules.", "Scenario 3: Data licensing becomes a larger constraint. If venues clarify or tighten redistribution, derived-data, retention, and AI terms, a technically working API may still be unsuitable for a public learning product. Observable triggers: Revised data terms; Published Market Data Agreements; Express AI or retention clauses; Written licensing permission for the intended use. Uncertainty: Future licensing terms are unknown. No permission for this course to ingest or redistribute live venue data has been obtained.", "Scenario 4: Stronger integrity controls. If regulators and venues add controls in 2027, confidentiality duties, outcome influence, contract exclusions, and surveillance evidence may receive more attention. Observable triggers: Updated rulebooks; Regulator enforcement notices; Exchange disciplinary publications; New market-specific exclusions or government ethics rules. Uncertainty: The scope, timing, and effectiveness of future controls are unknown. Enforcement allegations must be labeled accurately.", "Scenario 5: Liquidity changes unevenly. If activity expands or access contracts in 2027, popular markets may gain depth while obscure or disputed contracts become harder to exit. Observable triggers: Authorized observations of executable spread and depth; Fee-schedule changes; Market-maker notices; Trading suspensions or settlement delays. Uncertainty: No growth or deterioration is predicted. Volume and publicity are not proof of executable liquidity, and paper fills do not establish live performance.", "Scenario 6: Perpetuals expand, or margin rules tighten. Additional asset-specific approvals and product launches could broaden perpetual offerings in 2027. Volatility events could also lead to stricter margin, access or liquidation rules; both paths can coexist. Observable triggers: New CFTC product approvals; filed contract specifications; official changes to funding, collateral, maintenance and access requirements. Uncertainty: Neither new assets nor stable leverage limits are assumed. Funding, deficit protections and retail availability may differ by account and product.", "These six conditional cases may coexist. Check effective dates, appeals, source rights and the exact product and jurisdiction. None is a factual claim about what 2027 will bring, a price forecast, or a recommendation to deploy capital. A developer endpoint alone is weak evidence for research permission; a press release alone cannot establish a final operative legal outcome." ], "workedExample": { "title": "An update rule for a possible future", "paragraphs": [ "A learner invents the broader regulated distribution scenario for one specified product and jurisdiction. Its trigger is a final, effective official action plus revised binding access terms that directly cover that product and jurisdiction. Its disconfirming evidence is an appeal, stay, contrary restriction, or terms that exclude the intended users. The learner records a monthly review date and refuses to turn an unverified advertisement into the trigger.", "For the data-licensing scenario, a new developer endpoint is only partial evidence. A written license expressly permitting the intended research, AI input, and public display would answer additional questions. If those rights remain unresolved, the scenario exercise continues with synthetic data. No probability is supplied by this course; any learner-assigned probability is explicitly a subjective assumption to test and revise." ] }, "paperExercise": { "title": "Complete the 2027 paper capstone", "steps": [ "Select one synthetic binary event and write its complete settlement and dispute rules.", "Record a base-rate prior, a Bayes update, a forecast timestamp, an uncertainty range, and a future scoring plan.", "Build a synthetic order book and fee schedule. Calculate expected net, partial-fill exposure, common-shock losses, and capital lock assumptions.", "Add a separate synthetic perpetual stress example and explain why its margin and path risks differ from the event contract.", "For each 2027 scenario, write one observable trigger, one disconfirming observation, a dated review plan, and the legal/data/API questions that remain separate.", "Produce a one-page research conclusion with assumptions, failure conditions, and paper limitations. Leave account creation, funding, credentials, and live orders outside the exercise." ] }, "checkpoint": { "question": "Which is the strongest form of a 2027 scenario statement?", "options": [ "Access will expand and profits will increase.", "If specified official actions and binding terms take effect, this product's access may change; monitor the stated triggers and disconfirming evidence.", "A current advertisement proves next year's product rules." ], "correctIndex": 1, "explanation": "A useful scenario states conditions, scope, evidence, and uncertainty. It does not treat a possible future as a settled fact or imply returns." } } ] }, "landscape": { "asOf": "2026-10-03", "sources": [ { "id": "scoring", "title": "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation", "url": "https://sites.stat.washington.edu/raftery/Research/PDF/Gneiting2007jasa.pdf", "publisher": "Gneiting & Raftery / JASA, 2007", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Proper scoring encourages honest probability forecasts; calibration and sharpness are separate aspects of forecast evaluation.", "caveat": "The lab uses the binary mean-squared-error convention, scaled 0–1. This is not a profit measure." }, { "id": "cftc-basics", "title": "Basics of Futures Trading", "url": "https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/FuturesMarketBasics/index.htm", "publisher": "CFTC", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Futures, margin and leverage require risk awareness; derivative losses can exceed the amount initially committed.", "caveat": "General education; not approval of a venue, product or person." }, { "id": "btc-approval", "title": "BTCPERP futures approval · May 29, 2026", "url": "https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9240-26", "publisher": "CFTC", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "The Commission approved KalshiEX’s bitcoin-referencing BTCPERP for listing as a futures contract, subject to compliance.", "caveat": "Product-specific approval does not prove historical US-first status or personal eligibility." }, { "id": "kalshi-api", "title": "Predictions and Perps API documentation", "url": "https://docs.kalshi.com/welcome", "publisher": "Kalshi", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Official documentation separates event-contract interfaces from perpetual-futures and margin interfaces.", "caveat": "Technical documentation is not a license for public data sharing or AI processing. No API was called." }, { "id": "kalshi-perps", "title": "Perpetual futures, explained", "url": "https://kalshi.com/perpetuals/learn", "publisher": "Kalshi", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Company documentation describes leverage, funding and liquidation; leverage limits can change and a negative balance may be owed.", "caveat": "Company’s US-first claim is not independently established. Deficit descriptions differ from its liquidation help page." }, { "id": "kalshi-dcm", "title": "KalshiEX DCM registry", "url": "https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/IndustryFilings/TradingOrganizations/42993", "publisher": "CFTC", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "KalshiEX is a designated contract market. Exchange designation is distinct from contract approval and clearing.", "caveat": "Registration does not settle every state or tribal legal question." }, { "id": "kalshi-dco", "title": "Kalshi Klear DCO registry", "url": "https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/IndustryFilings/ClearingOrganizations/53075", "publisher": "CFTC", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Kalshi Klear is a registered clearing organization; clearing and exchange functions are distinct.", "caveat": "Margined retail access also involves intermediaries and account-specific requirements." }, { "id": "kalshi-access", "title": "Applying for Perpetuals Access", "url": "https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/15357656-applying-for-perpetuals-access", "publisher": "Kalshi Help Center", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Perpetual access involves US-based verification, a separate application, review and mandatory tutorial.", "caveat": "No learner’s access was checked; product access is not automatic." }, { "id": "kalshi-individual", "title": "Signing Up as an Individual", "url": "https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/13823778-signing-up-as-an-individual", "publisher": "Kalshi Help Center", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Age and identity verification requirements and location restrictions apply.", "caveat": "Does not establish blanket California sports access." }, { "id": "kalshi-funding", "title": "How Funding Works", "url": "https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/15357613-how-funding-works", "publisher": "Kalshi Help Center", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Funding transfers between opposite positions; its sign determines which side pays. It differs from trading fees.", "caveat": "All course rates and periods are invented. Current parameters must be rechecked." }, { "id": "kalshi-margin", "title": "How Margin Works", "url": "https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/15357594-how-margin-works", "publisher": "Kalshi Help Center", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Initial, maintenance and variation margin differ; ongoing mark-to-market settlement coexists with no fixed expiry.", "caveat": "The paper model is not this margin engine." }, { "id": "kalshi-liquidation", "title": "Understanding Liquidation", "url": "https://help.kalshi.com/en/articles/15357646-understanding-liquidation", "publisher": "Kalshi Help Center", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Maintenance breaches can trigger liquidation; this page describes isolated deficits being absorbed by a risk waterfall.", "caveat": "Apparently different scope from the customer-liability warning in the perpetuals learn page. No guaranteed loss cap is inferred." }, { "id": "kalshi-data", "title": "Data Terms of Use", "url": "https://kalshi-public-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/kalshi-data-terms-of-service.pdf", "publisher": "Kalshi", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Data terms restrict redistribution, software/data reuse and AI/ML processing; public visibility is not unrestricted permission.", "caveat": "No written educational data/AI license was obtained. Course uses synthetic data and public source references." }, { "id": "kalshi-developer", "title": "API Developer Agreement v1.1", "url": "https://assets.kalshi.com/Kalshi-Developer-Agreement.pdf", "publisher": "Kalshi", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "API use is scoped to a member’s own trading; third-party data sharing requires written authorization.", "caveat": "Endpoint availability does not authorize a course feed. No API agreement was accepted." }, { "id": "ca-tribal", "title": "Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi · Sept 16, 2026", "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf", "publisher": "US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "In preliminary proceedings, the panel found tribes likely to succeed on IGRA claims about sports contracts accessed on tribal lands and remanded remaining injunction factors.", "caveat": "Not a final statewide California prohibition. Subsequent stays, mandates and remand orders were not verified." }, { "id": "nv-sports", "title": "KalshiEX v. Assad · Aug 28, 2026", "url": "https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/25-7516.pdf", "publisher": "US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Nevada litigation: the panel affirmed dissolution of preliminary protection for sports contracts on the preemption showing, with partial remand.", "caveat": "Nevada remedy is not a California-wide ban; later docket actions unverified." }, { "id": "ca-ag", "title": "California joins defense of state gambling laws · June 12, 2026", "url": "https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-joins-bipartisan-coalition-defending-state-gambling-laws", "publisher": "California Attorney General", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "California’s amicus position supports state gambling-law authority in litigation involving other states.", "caveat": "A litigating position is not a California court order or final legal determination." }, { "id": "kalshi-integrity", "title": "Source agency and trading prohibitions", "url": "https://kalshi-public-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/kalshi-source-agency-trading-prohibitions.pdf", "publisher": "Kalshi", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Restrictions cover source-agency employees, material nonpublic information and the ability to influence contract outcomes.", "caveat": "Read current contract-specific rules; the course does not infer permissions for any profession or learner." }, { "id": "pm_designation", "title": "CFTC designated contract market record: QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US", "url": "https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/IndustryFilings/TradingOrganizations/49571", "publisher": "Commodity Futures Trading Commission", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Federal designated status; Legal entity and assumed name.", "caveat": "Registration does not establish individual eligibility, every state's access rules, contract availability, or data reuse rights." }, { "id": "pm_product", "title": "What is Polymarket US?", "url": "https://docs.polymarket.us/getting-started/what-is-polymarket-us", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Separate international and US products; US dollar event-contract product.", "caveat": "Venue descriptions of compliance or price accuracy are not independent California legal clearance or guarantees of executable prices." }, { "id": "pm_intro", "title": "Polymarket US API introduction", "url": "https://docs.polymarket.us/api-reference/introduction", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Official retail API exists; Public read endpoints and authenticated trading/account endpoints differ.", "caveat": "Technical access and display documentation do not supersede terms or grant this course redistribution or AI rights." }, { "id": "pm_auth", "title": "Polymarket US retail API authentication", "url": "https://docs.polymarket.us/api-reference/authentication", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Identity verification and approval for authenticated retail access; Official developer portal.", "caveat": "No account, key, or approval for a production integration was obtained. Public API existence is a verified fact, while project permissions remain unresolved." }, { "id": "pm_onboarding", "title": "Polymarket Exchange institutional onboarding", "url": "https://docs.polymarket.us/trader-guide/onboarding", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Institutional agreement and review route; Individual traders are directed to retail documentation.", "caveat": "Do not apply institutional onboarding requirements universally to retail users. No institutional agreement was obtained." }, { "id": "pm_data", "title": "Polymarket US read-only data onboarding", "url": "https://docs.polymarket.us/data-guide/onboarding", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Market Data Agreement; Reviewed read-only credentials and scopes.", "caveat": "The agreement was not obtained. AI use, retention, derived works, and public redistribution rights remain unresolved. Read scopes are not reuse licenses." }, { "id": "pm_terms", "title": "Polymarket App terms and conditions", "url": "https://polymarket.us/tos", "publisher": "PM US Tech", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "ISV front end and controlling exchange documents; Local eligibility conditions; Personal noncommercial data-use limits and express licensing for reuse.", "caveat": "Effective September 25, 2025; read in the official embedded document through the browser. No specific AI ban or California legal approval is established; exact reuse rights need express permission." }, { "id": "pm_rules", "title": "Polymarket US Rulebook", "url": "https://polymarketexchange.com/files/legal/latest/rulebook", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Individual participant requirements; Application approval conditions; Participant conduct and outcome-review framework.", "caveat": "Cover dated September 30, 2026. The latest URL changes over time. No California-specific clearance found; public-data posting does not grant unrestricted reuse." }, { "id": "pm_geoblock", "title": "Polymarket International geographic restrictions", "url": "https://docs.polymarket.com/api-reference/geoblock", "publisher": "Polymarket", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "US listed as close-only on frontend and API; Separate complete-block, close-only, and frontend-only categories.", "caveat": "This is an international product policy, separate from the US product and from a legal opinion. Do not imply circumvention is permitted." }, { "id": "pm_integrity", "title": "Polymarket US market integrity policy", "url": "https://integrity.polymarket.us/", "publisher": "Polymarket US", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Confidential-information misuse restrictions; Outcome-influence and manipulation restrictions; Rulebook and enforcement references.", "caveat": "Surveillance policies do not guarantee unbiased prices. Individual contracts and applicable law may add restrictions." }, { "id": "pm_state_litigation", "title": "New York announces lawsuit against Polymarket US", "url": "https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-and-attorney-general-james-announce-lawsuit-against-polymarket-running-illegal", "publisher": "New York State Governor and Attorney General", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "September 24, 2026 state litigation announcement; Continuing need to track state and contract-specific access.", "caveat": "The announcement describes allegations and requested relief, not a final judgment. It does not establish California restrictions or a nationwide outcome." }, { "id": "pm_cftc_advisory", "title": "CFTC Enforcement Division prediction-markets advisory", "url": "https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26", "publisher": "Commodity Futures Trading Commission", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "February 25, 2026 advisory; Confidential-information misuse, manipulation and disruptive-trading concerns; DCM surveillance duties.", "caveat": "Accurately attribute specific venue findings and potential statutory violations; this source does not clear a trading strategy." }, { "id": "jup_prediction", "title": "Jupiter Prediction Market API", "url": "https://developers.jup.ag/docs/prediction", "publisher": "Jupiter", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Beta binary prediction-market API on Solana; United States and South Korea IP restriction.", "caveat": "Product-specific access policy, subject to change. This does not prove a general statutory prohibition on token spot swaps." }, { "id": "jup_license", "title": "Jupiter SDK and API License Agreement", "url": "https://developers.jup.ag/docs/legal/sdk-api-license-agreement", "publisher": "Jupiter", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Limited development license; API/content sharing restrictions; Attribution and use conditions; Incorporated terms.", "caveat": "Contractual limits are distinct from law. The swap-framed license and newer prediction product leave exact integration scope questions requiring written permission." }, { "id": "jup_terms", "title": "Jupiter Terms of Use", "url": "https://developers.jup.ag/docs/legal/terms-of-use", "publisher": "Jupiter", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Incorporated locality restrictions; US-resident or located wallets in prohibited localities; Anti-circumvention conditions.", "caveat": "Interface or contractual policy does not establish a blanket legal ban on all digital-asset transactions. Accessible software does not imply contractual permission." }, { "id": "alp_paper", "title": "Alpaca paper trading documentation", "url": "https://docs.alpaca.markets/us/docs/paper-trading", "publisher": "Alpaca", "checked": "2026-10-03", "supports": "Simulated execution without exchange routing; Documented paper omissions; Simulated quantity need not respect real liquidity; Paper-only IEX data entitlement.", "caveat": "Adjacent securities/crypto simulation example, not a verified prediction-market venue. No live data reuse rights or account eligibility are implied." } ], "adFinding": { "title": "Perpetual futures exist. An ad is not an access decision.", "paragraphs": [ "Official Kalshi documents separate event contracts from perpetual futures. A CFTC announcement on May 29, 2026 confirms approval of the bitcoin-referencing BTCPERP futures contract. Perpetuals add margin, recurring funding and forced liquidation; they are not simply YES/NO predictions with larger prizes.", "The advertisement’s “first US” language remains an attributed company claim, not an independently established historical first. Its $1,000 collateral and $6,100 exposure imply 6.1× leverage by arithmetic. Exposure is not a payout or profit, and that illustration does not establish current limits, personal eligibility or a California legal determination.", "Kalshi’s perpetuals learn page warns of possible negative balances owed by the customer; its liquidation help page describes isolated deficits absorbed by a risk waterfall. Their account/rule scope was not reconciled in this review. Do not assume guaranteed loss caps; the paper stress model demonstrates a possible deficit, not a specific account’s obligation." ], "sourceIds": [ "btc-approval", "kalshi-api", "kalshi-perps", "kalshi-access", "kalshi-liquidation" ] }, "venues": [ { "name": "Kalshi", "kind": "US exchange / event contracts + separate perpetual futures", "summary": "CFTC-designated KalshiEX and registered Kalshi Klear perform different exchange and clearing functions. A specific BTC perpetual approval is verified; event-contract and perpetual mechanics remain separate.", "api": "Official Predictions and Perps documentation exists. This course calls neither interface.", "rights": "Data Terms contain AI/ML and reuse restrictions. The Developer Agreement restricts third-party sharing without written permission; a public quote feed or LLM input is not authorized here.", "eligibility": "Age, verification, location and conflict restrictions apply. Perpetuals require separate approval. California sports-contract and tribal-land litigation remains material; September Ninth Circuit opinions do not provide blanket statewide clearance. Later court actions and individual eligibility were not established.", "courseUse": "Public regulator and rule references plus invented numerical examples. No market prices, descriptions or settlement dataset is imported.", "sourceIds": [ "kalshi-dcm", "kalshi-dco", "kalshi-api", "kalshi-data", "kalshi-developer", "kalshi-access", "ca-tribal", "nv-sports", "ca-ag", "kalshi-integrity" ] }, { "name": "Polymarket US", "kind": "US event-contract exchange", "summary": "QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US is listed as a designated contract market by the CFTC. Its USD event-contract product is separate from Polymarket International.", "api": "Official retail documentation describes a public read API without keys and an authenticated trading/account API. The retail path uses identity verification and the developer portal; institutional onboarding is a separate path.", "rights": "Technical access does not grant reuse rights. App terms restrict data to personal, noncommercial use connected with trading; listed reuse requires express licensing. Institutional read-only access requires a Market Data Agreement. Public redistribution and AI-processing rights for this course have not been obtained.", "eligibility": "Published terms require minimum age or the higher local threshold, legal permission, screening, and venue rules. They do not promise availability in any specific location. California-specific legal eligibility is unverified here; an API, app, or approved account does not settle every legal question.", "courseUse": "Study publicly sourced product facts and contract concepts. Exercises use invented prices and do not call its API, create credentials, or place orders.", "sourceIds": [ "pm_designation", "pm_product", "pm_intro", "pm_auth", "pm_onboarding", "pm_data", "pm_terms", "pm_rules" ] }, { "name": "Polymarket International", "kind": "International crypto prediction product", "summary": "The international blockchain product is distinct from the US exchange and has its own access policies.", "api": "International API documentation includes geographic restrictions. The current table lists the United States as close-only on both frontend and API: new orders are restricted under that category.", "rights": "A documented endpoint or publicly visible information does not establish permission to redistribute venue data or feed it to AI. No such permission was obtained for this course.", "eligibility": "Do not treat the global product as a US trading route. Follow current restrictions and do not bypass them through VPNs, alternate endpoints, or other workarounds. This policy is separate from Polymarket US eligibility.", "courseUse": "Learn why product, entity, geography, and resolution rules must be identified precisely. No global quotes or wallet integration are used.", "sourceIds": [ "pm_product", "pm_geoblock" ] }, { "name": "Jupiter Prediction Market API", "kind": "Beta Solana prediction infrastructure", "summary": "Official documentation describes a beta API for binary prediction markets on Solana. Beta interfaces may change.", "api": "The prediction API is publicly documented, but its geographical-restrictions section currently restricts United States and South Korea IP access.", "rights": "The API/SDK license includes development, sharing, attribution, and use restrictions and incorporates separate Terms of Use. A proposed data or AI integration needs permission for its exact use; none was obtained here.", "eligibility": "The prediction API's US restriction and incorporated locality terms are product or contractual conditions. They are not a statute proving a blanket legal ban on ordinary token spot swaps.", "courseUse": "Compare architecture and contractual permission conceptually. No API calls, live quotes, wallets, unsigned transactions, or signatures are used.", "sourceIds": [ "jup_prediction", "jup_license", "jup_terms" ] }, { "name": "Alpaca paper environment", "kind": "Adjacent securities and crypto simulation", "summary": "Alpaca documents simulated securities and crypto execution. This research does not establish it as a prediction-market venue.", "api": "Its paper environment simulates fills rather than sending orders to a live exchange. The course teaches only the general idea of a separate paper environment.", "rights": "Paper-only accounts have a specified IEX data entitlement; published API access does not authorize the course to republish live market data. No Alpaca data is used.", "eligibility": "No account creation or live brokerage eligibility is implied. Alpaca's paper availability does not establish prediction-market access or legal eligibility.", "courseUse": "Use its published omissions to understand paper limits: impact, queue position, latency slippage, information leakage, and some fees are absent; simulated fills need not respect displayed liquidity. All course calculations remain synthetic.", "sourceIds": [ "alp_paper" ] } ], "scenarios": [ { "title": "Broader regulated distribution", "description": "If more exchanges and brokers expose event contracts in 2027, access channels and product differences may become more important to study.", "triggers": "New CFTC registrations or designation amendments; Official broker and exchange notices; API releases and documented onboarding changes.", "uncertainty": "Hypothetical scenario, not a forecast. No probability assigned; it can coexist with restrictions and does not imply personal eligibility.", "exercise": "Compare two invented contract specifications and reconstruct a paper fill from a synthetic book, including fees and stale data." }, { "title": "Access fragments by state or contract category", "description": "If disputes and rule changes persist, 2027 access may vary more by state, sports versus other events, or user class.", "triggers": "Published court orders; State regulator notices; Venue rule changes or contract withdrawals; Current geolocation-policy changes.", "uncertainty": "No legal outcome is assumed. An allegation is not a judgment; a case in one state does not establish another state's rules.", "exercise": "Build a dated source checklist for an invented venue and keep technical access, contract rights, law, and user eligibility in separate columns." }, { "title": "Data licensing becomes a larger constraint", "description": "If venues clarify or tighten redistribution, derived-data, retention, and AI terms, a technically working API may still be unsuitable for a public learning product.", "triggers": "Revised data terms; Published Market Data Agreements; Express AI or retention clauses; Written licensing permission for the intended use.", "uncertainty": "Future licensing terms are unknown. No permission for this course to ingest or redistribute live venue data has been obtained.", "exercise": "Create a provenance and license register for synthetic records; identify which proposed uses would need explicit permission." }, { "title": "Stronger integrity controls", "description": "If regulators and venues add controls in 2027, confidentiality duties, outcome influence, contract exclusions, and surveillance evidence may receive more attention.", "triggers": "Updated rulebooks; Regulator enforcement notices; Exchange disciplinary publications; New market-specific exclusions or government ethics rules.", "uncertainty": "The scope, timing, and effectiveness of future controls are unknown. Enforcement allegations must be labeled accurately.", "exercise": "For three invented research hypotheses, document information provenance, confidentiality duties, influence over outcomes, and reasons to abstain." }, { "title": "Liquidity changes unevenly", "description": "If activity expands or access contracts in 2027, popular markets may gain depth while obscure or disputed contracts become harder to exit.", "triggers": "Authorized observations of executable spread and depth; Fee-schedule changes; Market-maker notices; Trading suspensions or settlement delays.", "uncertainty": "No growth or deterioration is predicted. Volume and publicity are not proof of executable liquidity, and paper fills do not establish live performance.", "exercise": "Stress an invented position with a shallow book, partial fills, larger fees, correlated losses, delayed settlement, and no available exit." }, { "title": "Perpetuals expand, or margin rules tighten", "description": "Additional asset-specific approvals and product launches could broaden perpetual offerings in 2027. Volatility events could also lead to stricter margin, access or liquidation rules; both paths can coexist.", "triggers": "New CFTC product approvals; filed contract specifications; official changes to funding, collateral, maintenance and access requirements.", "uncertainty": "Neither new assets nor stable leverage limits are assumed. Funding, deficit protections and retail availability may differ by account and product.", "exercise": "Repeat the synthetic stress with higher maintenance, changing funding signs, a price gap and forced-exit costs. Identify which assumptions a static terminal calculation cannot test." } ], "gaps": [ "California: subsequent court stays, mandates, remand orders and individual product/location eligibility remain unverified. This dated overview is not legal clearance.", "Kalshi: US-first chronology and the full authenticity/date/terms of an advertisement were not independently established; the private phone screenshot is not reproduced.", "Kalshi: official liquidation-deficit descriptions have a scope discrepancy; controlling contract, margin-account and clearing rules must resolve account-specific obligations.", "No written venue permission for public price redistribution, AI ingestion or an educational data feed was obtained. API availability and data rights remain distinct.", "No venue account, current personal approval, live fee/leverage limit, executable quote or future market availability was checked.", "Polymarket US: retail API documentation is verified, but no written approval for this public production integration or redistribution/AI rights was obtained. Institutional onboarding conditions must not be assumed to govern every retail use.", "Global Polymarket and Polymarket US are distinct access paths and rule sets. A global geoblock status is not a Polymarket US account approval.", "Jupiter prediction-product geographic restrictions and API licensing are distinct from the legal status of all spot swaps; no broad California spot-law conclusion was established." ] } }