2026-05-12 | | Total: 4
This study investigates how cross-stock information diffusion, driven by both retail and institutional investors, influences excess comovement in the Chinese retail-dominated market and the U.S. institution-dominated market. Using data from 4,533 Chinese stocks and 4,517 U.S. stocks from 2010 to 2022, we identify three key findings. First, the dominant investor group in each market significantly drives excess comovement. Specifically, in China, compared with institution-driven diffusion, retail-driven information diffusion has a notably stronger effect on excess comovement. In contrast, in the U.S., institution-driven diffusion is the primary driver of excess comovement, surpassing the influence of retail-driven diffusion. Second, we identify investors' trading behavior as the underlying mechanism through which information diffusion affects excess comovement. Third, we observe a lead-lag relationship: stocks with faster retail-driven information diffusion exhibit comovement that precedes those with slower diffusion. Based on this finding, we further demonstrate that the predictive power of information diffusion varies across markets. In China, retail-driven diffusion shows strong and persistent predictability for excess comovement, whereas in the U.S., institution-driven diffusion exhibits similarly robust predictive capacity.
The introduction of leverage on prediction-market event contracts raises three structurally distinct questions that have not been addressed jointly: how leverage changes manipulation incentives, how it interacts with informed-trading rents, and how regulatory frameworks should respond. This paper develops a theoretical framework for the first two and a synthesis of the existing regulatory landscape for the third. The principal analytical move is a two-axis manipulation taxonomy distinguishing market-price manipulation from real-world outcome manipulation, where the manipulator affects the underlying event itself. Continuous-underlying derivative markets generally do not make outcome manipulation a venue-level payoff channel; event-linked markets do. Within this taxonomy, leverage plays asymmetric roles: it scales market-price manipulation linearly but shifts the cost-benefit threshold for outcome manipulation, and it scales informed-trading rents in three ways (direct multiplication, Sharpe-ratio preservation, detection-cost amortization). Section 7 connects Paper 1's pre-emption and halt-protocol findings (CC-007b, CC-008) to three manipulation channels: pre-emption introduced by the dynamic-margin engine, halt-arbitrage introduced by the resolution-zone halt protocol, and strategic bad-debt-shifting that no engine in Paper 1's framework family addresses. The framework's manipulation-resistance contribution is a re-allocation of attack surface, not a net reduction. The regulatory synthesis covers principal jurisdictions (US, EU, UK, Singapore, offshore) and identifies three regulatory-arbitrage pathways. The paper concludes with 14 recommendations for venue operators, regulatory bodies, and the research community, separated into framework-independent and framework-conditional categories.
Paper 1 of this research programme develops a resolution-aware risk-design framework for the simplest event-linked perpetual: a contract whose underlying tracks a single binary prediction-market probability through resolution. The instrument class is broader. Variants span conditional probabilities P(A|B), spreads p^A - p^B, weighted baskets sum w_i p^(i), derivatives on variance or entropy of the probability process, contracts on liquidity itself, perpetual-on-expiring-event roll structures, and funding-only derivatives with no settlement. Each variant inherits some framework components from the single-market binary case and requires its own design adaptations. This paper develops a formal taxonomy of seven pure-form canonical variants beyond the probability-index perpetual of Paper 1, organised along four orthogonal design axes: underlying geometry, temporal structure, settlement structure, and venue composition. The list is not exhaustive; combinations are not treated separately. For each variant we provide a precise payoff definition; an inheritance map identifying which Paper 1 components carry over, are modified, or fail; variant-specific design constraints; microstructure properties; empirical evaluability on the PMXT v2 archive; and limitations. Notable findings: the conditional variant admits a candidate non-portability proposition (denominator instability as the conditioning event becomes improbable); the spread variant requires a three-channel decomposition of resolution risk; the volatility/entropy variant avoids random binary terminal-collapse but introduces estimator-convention and entropy-decay issues; the basket variant requires multi-period jump-aware margin whose aggregation is correlation-dependent. The paper is theoretical primarily; it specifies how demonstrative time series can be constructed and provides evaluability criteria to guide future work.
We develop and counterfactually evaluate a resolution-aware risk-design framework (PIRAP) for perpetual futures whose underlying tracks a single binary prediction-market probability through resolution. The framework specifies six components: an index estimator combining mid-price, depth-weighted mid, and time-decayed VWAP; jump-aware tiered margin sized against bounded-event terminal-collapse magnitude; leverage compression schedule contracting toward resolution; resolution-aware funding rule with boundary-aware correction; a multi-stage halt protocol; and an eligibility framework. Two formal non-portability propositions establish that standard basis-only funding paired with continuous-vol static margin fails on bounded-event underlyings. Empirical evaluation uses Polymarket's PMXT v2 archive for 2026-04-21 to 2026-04-27 (13,298-market analysis sample passing adequacy gates from 61,087 ingested; 13,115 resolved within the empirical window for E3). E1 evaluates two pre-registered stylized facts; E2 conducts counterfactual replay across three engine configurations; E3 isolates the resolution-zone protocol's contribution. Results are mixed. Five pre-registered floors: stylized-fact floors (boundary depth asymmetry, terminal-jump magnitude) PASS; welfare-side directional floors (final-hour liquidation -6%, drawdown -5.1% pooled, median PnL +14%) two FAIL one PASS; E3 mechanic floors (final-hour liquidation -80% by halt construction PASS; bad-debt frequency +2.4% FAIL). Three of five materiality floors fail: the framework as specified does not validate deployment, but the empirical record establishes a halt-versus-margin scope distinction (halt addresses execution-channel risk; terminal-jump bad-debt remains margin-side) and documents a pre-emption trade-off constraining the dynamic-margin component. The paper concludes with structural recommendations and explicit non-deployable status.