SXUSDT
SX / Tether USD
crypto

Dont google SX Bet anyone make OP provide a link. This is a coordinated campaign and not a single post has provided a link to a site or a githib. the likely goal is to have unsuspecting users search "SX Bet" hoping you click and they can scam.
Look if this is not the case OP will provide a link to SX Bet and some actual info instead of these shitty attempts.
Stay safe everyone

I’ve been reviewing how some prediction market platforms move execution and settlement entirely on-chain, and SX bet provides a concrete example of how this architecture works in practice.
Instead of using a centralized backend to manage matching and payouts, the system relies on smart contracts to coordinate peer-to-peer interactions. When two sides agree on a market outcome, funds are locked directly in an on-chain escrow contract, rather than being held by a platform operator.
What stood out from a technical standpoint:
• Peer-to-peer market structure participants create and fill positions directly against each other, with smart contracts enforcing execution rules
• On-chain escrow settlement once positions are matched, assets are locked and later resolved automatically when the outcome is finalized
• Instant finality after resolution settlement happens at the protocol level without withdrawal queues or manual processing
• No protocol execution fees price formation and liquidity incentives are driven by participant behavior rather than platform rake
• Open, programmatic access to market data enabling analytics, monitoring, and tooling to be built externally
From an infrastructure perspective, this shifts trust away from centralized operators and toward verifiable contracts, but it also introduces new constraints around oracle resolution, liquidity distribution, and UX responsiveness compared to off-chain systems.
Some questions I’m still thinking about:
Does protocol-level settlement materially reduce counterparty risk compared to centralized settlement flows?
How do fee-less designs affect long-term liquidity depth and market efficiency?
For builders working with on-chain market data, what tends to be the biggest bottleneck in practice?
Approaching this purely from a technical perspective and interested in hearing how others evaluate these trade-offs.

I hear SX is his next target

There’s a growing class of fully on‑chain, peer‑to‑peer market protocols that differ fundamentally from centralized platforms. Using SX Bet as a reference, I’ve been studying how these decentralized systems handle core mechanics like settlement and liquidity.
One notable feature is smart‑contract based settlement. In these systems, all market outcomes and settlement logic are encoded directly in smart contracts. Once an event’s resolution is reported on‑chain, the contracts trigger settlement automatically without a central party controlling funds or requiring manual intervention. This makes the process deterministic and publicly verifiable.
In practice, assets staked by counterparties are held in an escrow contract until resolution, and are only released according to the reported result.
Another structural difference is peer‑to‑peer pricing and liquidity. Instead of a house or operator setting prices, participants post and fill orders directly, and the market price emerges from these bids and offers. This model shifts responsibility for liquidity provision entirely to participants and any automated strategies they build.
Some of these protocols also provide programmatic access via free APIs. Builders can read orderbook data, track trades, or integrate market data into independent tools.
---
Discussion Points
1. How does on‑chain, automatic settlement influence trust and behavior compared to hybrid or centralized systems?
2. What UX trade‑offs exist when users interact directly with blockchain settlement and escrow logic?
3. Can pure peer‑to‑peer orderbooks scale under high volumes, or do automated strategies end up filling the role of traditional market makers?
Interested to hear insights from developers or researchers looking at decentralized market structure and on‑chain design.

I’ve been looking into fully on-chain, peer-to-peer market protocols, using SX Bet as a reference case to understand how these systems differ from centralized approaches.
Some technical aspects that stand out:
1) Smart-contract based settlement
Settlement occurs entirely on-chain via contract state updates. Once outcomes are finalized, updates happen automatically without a central operator, making it deterministic and publicly verifiable.
2) Peer-to-peer pricing
Prices are determined by participant orders rather than a central house. Without platform fees, participants take full responsibility for liquidity and efficiency.
3) Programmatic access via APIs
Some protocols expose open APIs, allowing developers to read market data and experiment programmatically. This enables analysis, automation, or research on market dynamics.
4) Liquidity without centralized management
Without a central entity managing risk or subsidizing depth, liquidity depends on participants and competition. This raises questions about scalability and stability under high volume.
Discussion points:
How does fully on-chain settlement affect trust and market behavior compared to hybrid systems?
What UX trade-offs arise when prioritizing transparency and self-custody?
Can P2P orderbooks scale efficiently without centralized risk management, or do automated strategies naturally emerge?
I’d love to hear perspectives from developers, researchers, or anyone exploring on-chain market microstructure.

How on-chain P2P prediction markets like SX Bet handle settlement & liquidity without platform fees