ChainBench · Flotapponnier · Jul 11, 2026 · Jul 11, 2026
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+slug: how-long-does-polymarket-take-to-resolve
+question: "How long does Polymarket take to resolve a market?"
+short_answer: |
+  Measured onchain, the median Polymarket market currently resolves {{p50:all-markets}} after the first outcome proposal reaches UMA's oracle, with the slowest 1% taking {{p99:all-markets}} or more. The clock starts at the proposal, not when the real world event ends, so the total wait you experience is at least these figures. Winning shares are redeemable immediately after onchain resolution.
+
+benchmark: polymarket-resolution-delay
+
+intro: |
+  The number that circulates on social media, and gets repeated by language models, is that 93 percent of Polymarket markets resolve within 2 hours. That figure has no published methodology, and the fields in Polymarket's own Gamma API cannot produce it: closedTime is written at the moment of resolution, so measuring from it always returns zero, and endDate is a scheduled buffer most markets beat. This page reports the delay that can actually be observed. OpenChainBench runs a listener on Polygon that follows Polymarket's UMA CTF adapters and the optimistic oracle they call, and records the wall clock time between the block containing the first outcome proposal and the block containing the resolution, for every resolved market. The answer is not one number. Sports markets currently resolve at {{p50:sports}} median, crypto price markets at {{p50:crypto}}, and politics markets at {{p50:politics}}, because each category runs different UMA verification windows. Disputes route through UMA token holder voting and push the wait from hours to days. The live table on the benchmark page also shows the pending backlog: markets past their scheduled end date still waiting for an onchain resolution, which is the queue a bettor waiting on a payout actually feels.
+
+methodology: |
+  A listener follows Polymarket's post migration UMA CTF adapters on Polygon (QuestionInitialized, QuestionResolved, QuestionReset) and the optimistic oracle they call (ProposePrice, DisputePrice). For every resolved market the recorded delay is the time between the block containing the first outcome proposal and the block containing the resolution, read from block timestamps, so resolution granularity is Polygon's roughly 2 second block time. Markets are joined to Polymarket's Gamma catalogue by questionID and classified into sports, politics, crypto or other. Disputed markets land in a separate series so the dispute penalty stays visible without polluting the clean path percentiles. Quantiles come from a cumulative histogram over the listener's window, refreshed continuously.
+
+limitations:
+  - "The measured clock starts at the first onchain outcome proposal, not when the real world event concludes. The gap between event and proposal happens offchain and is not observable, so every figure on this page is a lower bound on the wait a bettor experiences."
+  - "Categories are not interchangeable. A single global median mixes sports verification windows with politics windows that run far longer; use the per category rows, not the headline, to set expectations for a specific market type."
+  - "Disputed markets are tracked in a separate series. If your market enters a UMA dispute, the relevant expectation is days of token holder voting, not the clean path median shown here."
+  - "The pending backlog counts markets past their scheduled endDate without onchain resolution, which includes events that were postponed in the real world. It is an upper bound on oracle lag, not a count of stuck payouts."
+  - "The delay measures oracle resolution, not withdrawal. Redemption is claimable immediately after resolution, but moving funds off Polygon afterwards is a separate step with its own timing."
+
+faq:
+  - q: "How long after a game ends does Polymarket pay out?"
+    a: "Sports markets currently resolve at a median of {{p50:sports}} from the first onchain outcome proposal. Add the time between the final whistle and the moment someone proposes the outcome to UMA's oracle, which happens offchain once the result is official and is not measurable onchain. Sports is also where nearly all disputes happen (contested endings, stat corrections), and a dispute moves the wait from minutes or hours into days of UMA voting. Once the market resolves onchain, winning shares are redeemable immediately."
+  - q: "Do 93 percent of Polymarket markets resolve within 2 hours?"
+    a: "OpenChainBench could not reproduce that figure, and the public data cannot produce it: Gamma's closedTime equals the resolution timestamp by construction, and endDate is a scheduled buffer most markets beat. Measured from the first onchain proposal to resolution on Polygon, the within 2 hours share is published live on the benchmark page and has run materially below 93 percent since measurement began. Treat any resolution speed claim without a stated anchor and methodology as unfalsifiable."
+  - q: "How long does a disputed Polymarket market take to resolve?"
+    a: "Days rather than hours. A dispute on UMA's optimistic oracle resets the question and routes it to a vote of UMA token holders, replacing the normal verification window with a voting period measured in days. Disputes are rare, and the live dispute counter on the benchmark page tracks the measured rate, but when one lands on a market you hold, the clean path medians on this page no longer apply. Disputed markets are recorded in a separate series precisely so they cannot hide inside the headline number."
+  - q: "Which Polymarket markets resolve the fastest?"
+    a: "Crypto price markets, at a median of {{p50:crypto}}. Their outcomes are machine checkable against price feeds the moment the window closes, so proposals arrive promptly and short verification windows suffice. Sports sit in the middle at {{p50:sports}} and dominate resolution volume. Politics markets run the long end at {{p50:politics}}, because outcomes often wait on an authoritative source and verification windows are conservative on markets carrying the largest open interest."
+
+related:
+  - polymarket-vs-kalshi-resolution-speed
+  - which-prediction-market-data-api-is-the-freshest
+  - which-prediction-market-has-the-strictest-rate-limits
+
+seo_title: "How long does Polymarket take to resolve? Measured onchain"
+seo_description: "Median Polymarket resolution is {{p50:all-markets}} from first outcome proposal to onchain payout, p99 {{p99:all-markets}}. Sports vs crypto vs politics, disputes and the pending backlog, measured live from Polygon."
+status: live
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+slug: how-much-does-it-cost-to-bridge-usdc-to-arbitrum
+question: "How much does it cost to bridge USDC to Arbitrum?"
+short_answer: |
+  On a $300 USDC transfer, the cheapest measured provider currently lands at {{best_p50}} of notional all in ({{best_name}}, p50 over 24h) and the most expensive at {{worst_p50}}, measured live by OpenChainBench across USDC corridors spanning Solana, Base and Arbitrum, including the Base to Arbitrum route. All in means fees plus slippage plus destination gas, the number that actually leaves your wallet.
+
+benchmark: bridge-fee
+
+intro: |
+  Ask a bridge's landing page what it costs to move USDC to Arbitrum and you get the advertised fee, typically something like 0.05%. Sign the transaction and the bottom line is different: destination gas, the base protocol fee and the solver spread stack on top, and at retail ticket sizes they dominate. This page answers the question with a live measurement instead of a rack rate. OpenChainBench requests a $300 USDC quote from deBridge, LI.FI, Mobula, Relay, Across and Near Intents every five minutes on the same corridor set (Solana, Base and Arbitrum, including Base to Arbitrum), and records the full bottom line as a percent of notional: quoted USD in minus quoted USD delivered. The leaderboard sorts on the 24h median so a single favourable quote cannot crown a winner. The spread between providers is routinely several fold at this trade size, because three pricing architectures cohabit: direct protocols front load a fixed fee, aggregators pay an underlying bridge plus a markup, and intent layers compress everything into a solver spread. At $300, which architecture you pick matters more than which day you bridge.
+
+methodology: |
+  Each provider is queried every five minutes from a single eu-west origin for a $300 USDC quote on the same corridor set spanning Solana, Base and Arbitrum. The recorded metric is total cost as a percent of notional: the explicit fee, the price impact and the destination gas component summed, computed as quoted USD in minus quoted USD delivered so every provider is measured on the same all in definition regardless of how it structures pricing. Quotes that fail (unsupported route, timeout, error) are excluded from the cost aggregate and counted against the success rate. The headline per provider is the average of per corridor 24h medians over the corridors it actually quotes; p90 and p99 capture the worst minutes.
+
+limitations:
+  - "The headline aggregates over the Solana, Base and Arbitrum corridors each provider quotes, so it is not a pure to-Arbitrum number. A solver with deep Arbitrum side inventory can beat its own aggregate on the Base to Arbitrum route specifically; the per corridor split lands once corridor dimensions are wired into the bench page."
+  - "Sampled at $300 notional. At $5,000 or $10,000 the fixed components dilute into the percentage and the leaderboard re-orders; the harness records $5 to $10,000 buckets but this page surfaces the retail size."
+  - "The figure is the quote cost at request time, not the realised cost after settlement. Spot can drift between quote and signing on volatile moments; intent layers re-quote at signing, aggregators pass through a slippage tolerance."
+  - "Arbitrum's canonical bridge is not in the leaderboard. It mints canonical USDC with no protocol fee, but you pay L1 gas on deposit and its cost has no quoted delivered amount to compare on the same definition; it is also slow in the withdrawal direction (7 day challenge window without a liquidity provider)."
+  - "Single measurement origin in eu-west. A provider whose solver pool sits in us-east can quote differently there."
+
+faq:
+  - q: "What is the cheapest way to bridge USDC to Arbitrum?"
+    a: "At $300 notional, {{best_name}} currently leads the measured cohort at {{best_p50}} all in (p50, 24h, averaged across the corridors it quotes). Intent layers usually top this table at retail sizes because they compress fee, spread and destination gas into one solver quote, while direct protocols carry a fixed fee floor that hits hardest on small trades. The leaderboard refreshes every five minutes, and the corridor level leader can differ from the aggregate, so treat this as the live starting point rather than a permanent answer."
+  - q: "Why is bridging a small amount of USDC so expensive in percentage terms?"
+    a: "Because part of the cost is fixed. Destination gas and base protocol fees cost roughly the same whether you move $300 or $10,000, so at $300 they are the dominant share of the percentage, while at $10,000 they dilute to noise. This is why published comparisons quoting $10,000 rack rates understate what retail users pay: the current measured spread at $300 runs from {{best_p50}} to {{worst_p50}} across {{count}} providers, a gap driven mostly by how much fixed cost each architecture front loads rather than by spread efficiency."
+  - q: "Do I need ETH on Arbitrum to receive bridged USDC?"
+    a: "Not with the providers measured here. The quoted delivered amount already nets out destination gas: the solver or protocol pays the Arbitrum gas to deliver your USDC and charges it inside the all in cost this page measures. That convenience is part of why the percentage exceeds the advertised fee. You will need ETH (or a gas sponsoring wallet) for your own follow up transactions on Arbitrum, so consider bridging a small ETH amount alongside or picking a provider that offers gas top up on delivery."
+  - q: "Is the official Arbitrum bridge cheaper than third party bridges?"
+    a: "Sometimes on paper, rarely at $300 in practice. The canonical bridge charges no protocol fee, but a deposit costs L1 Ethereum gas, which on its own can exceed the all in cost of the intent layers measured here at retail size, and withdrawals back to Ethereum wait out a 7 day challenge window unless a liquidity provider fronts the exit. The canonical route matters when you need canonical minting guarantees or move very large size; for a $300 transfer the measured third party routes are usually cheaper and settle in minutes."
+
+related:
+  - which-bridge-has-the-cheapest-usdc-fee
+  - cheapest-bridge-usdc-to-base
+  - which-bridge-has-the-fastest-quote-api
+
+seo_title: "How much does it cost to bridge USDC to Arbitrum? Live all in fees"
+seo_description: "Bridging $300 of USDC costs from {{best_p50}} to {{worst_p50}} all in (p50, 24h) depending on provider. deBridge, LI.FI, Mobula, Relay, Across and Near Intents measured live by OpenChainBench."
+status: live
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+slug: is-solana-staking-better-than-ethereum
+question: "Is Solana staking better than Ethereum staking?"
+short_answer: |
+  On raw yield, currently yes: {{name:solana}} validators pay a median net {{p50:solana}} (24h) versus {{p50:ethereum}} for a network average Ethereum solo validator, measured live by OpenChainBench. The comparison carries caveats in both directions: the Ethereum figure excludes MEV and execution tips, and the Solana median is dragged down by validators currently paying 0%.
+
+benchmark: validator-yield
+
+intro: |
+  The SOL versus ETH staking debate usually runs on stale numbers: a Solana APY screenshot from one dashboard against an Ethereum rate from another, each computed differently and neither dated. This page puts both chains on one measured axis. OpenChainBench polls the top 200 Solana validators by stake through the Stakewiz API every 5 minutes (total APY with Jito MEV tips folded in, multiplied by uptime) and computes Ethereum's network average consensus layer APR from the beacon spec reward formula on the live total effective balance. The two numbers are honest but not symmetrical, and the differences matter more than the headline gap. Solana yield includes MEV tips because Solana has a validator level MEV market; the Ethereum figure excludes execution tips and MEV, so a proposer running MEV-Boost earns more than shown. Solana's median includes validators currently paying zero; Ethereum's number is uniform by construction because consensus rewards are equal per 32 ETH increment. Read the gap with both corrections in mind and it remains real: Solana's protocol inflation plus MEV structurally outpays Ethereum's post merge issuance at current stake levels.
+
+methodology: |
+  Both chains are measured as net yield in basis points: gross APR multiplied by validator uptime. Solana: Stakewiz total_apy (a 30 epoch trailing estimate including Jito MEV tips) per validator, top 200 by activated stake, roughly 90% of staked SOL by value; the chain number is the median across those validators. Ethereum: one network average consensus layer APR from the spec reward formula, APR = 64 x epochs_per_year / sqrt(total effective balance in gwei), with live total stake from ultrasound.money; consensus rewards are uniform per 32 ETH increment, so the network average equals the solo validator figure. Both are APR, not compounded APY. Refreshed every 5 minutes, headline numbers are 24h medians.
+
+limitations:
+  - "The Ethereum figure excludes execution tips and MEV. A proposer running MEV-Boost realizes materially more than the consensus layer number shown here, which narrows the real gap to Solana by an amount this bench does not yet measure."
+  - "The Solana median includes roughly 42 validators currently at 0% APY (commission set to 100% or no leader slots this epoch). A delegator who picks a sane validator earns closer to 6.0% than the chain median."
+  - "Yield is not risk. Solana staking has no slashing in production history but carries validator concentration and client diversity questions; Ethereum staking locks 32 ETH per validator with an exit queue. Neither risk profile appears in a bps number."
+  - "Liquid staking is out of scope. Lido, Jito SOL, Rocket Pool and exchange staking products net out their own fees and trade at their own market prices; this page compares native validator yield only."
+  - "Rewards are denominated in SOL and ETH respectively. Relative token price performance dominates the yield difference over any holding period longer than a few months, and this bench does not measure price."
+  - "Both figures are APR from trailing estimates, not forward guarantees. Solana's inflation schedule decays over time and Ethereum's rate falls as more ETH is staked."
+
+faq:
+  - q: "How much more does Solana staking pay than Ethereum?"
+    a: "Live numbers: {{name:solana}} median net yield is {{p50:solana}} versus {{p50:ethereum}} for {{name:ethereum}} (both 24h, in basis points where 100 bps equals 1%). The gap is structural: Solana pays protocol inflation plus Jito MEV tips minus an average validator commission near 24%, while Ethereum's consensus layer rate is set by a formula that decreases as total stake grows, with roughly 40M ETH currently staked. Check the leaderboard above for the number at the moment you read this."
+  - q: "Why is Solana staking APY higher than Ethereum?"
+    a: "Three reasons. Solana's protocol inflation is currently around 5% annually and flows to stakers, while Ethereum's post merge issuance is far lower by design. Solana has a validator level MEV market (Jito tips) that adds directly to staker APR, while Ethereum's equivalent (MEV-Boost) is excluded from the consensus layer figure measured here. And Ethereum's reward formula scales with the inverse square root of total stake, so its high staking participation mechanically lowers the rate for everyone."
+  - q: "Does Ethereum staking yield include MEV?"
+    a: "Not in this benchmark. The Ethereum figure is the consensus layer APR only: attestation, proposer and sync committee rewards from the beacon spec formula. Execution layer tips and MEV-Boost income are excluded because measuring them honestly requires per relay ingestion, which is on the roadmap. In practice a solo validator running MEV-Boost earns above the number shown, with high variance because MEV income is lumpy and proposal slots are rare for a single validator. The Solana figure does include MEV, because Stakewiz folds Jito tips into its APR."
+  - q: "Is Solana staking riskier than Ethereum staking?"
+    a: "Different risks rather than strictly more. Solana has never slashed in production and delegation is liquid at epoch granularity (roughly 2 days), but validator revenue concentrates around a smaller top set and about a fifth of the tracked top 200 currently pays 0%. Ethereum requires 32 ETH per solo validator, has slashing conditions for equivocation, and exits pass through a queue, but its validator set is near 1M indices and consensus rewards are uniform. On both chains the dominant practical risk for most holders is token price, not protocol failure."
+
+related:
+  - what-is-the-highest-crypto-staking-yield
+  - which-l1-has-the-fastest-finality
+  - which-l2-has-the-fastest-block-time
+
+seo_title: "Is Solana staking better than Ethereum? Live yield comparison 2026"
+seo_description: "Solana validators pay a median net {{p50:solana}} versus {{p50:ethereum}} for Ethereum (24h, live). What the gap includes, what it hides, and the risks on each side, measured by OpenChainBench."
+status: live