Provider at a glance
- Category
- Prediction Markets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.opinion.trade
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 53 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Opinion (Opinion Labs)
Prediction markets on BNB Chain
Prediction Markets
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 8 prediction markets in the published ranking
53
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $120 your cost/yr
Is Opinion (Opinion Labs) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Total trading cost6/10; the category best is 7
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Resolution integrity1/10 here; Limitless Exchange scores 3
- Regulatory access3/10 here; ADI PredictStreet scores 6
- Liquidity where you trade3/10 here; Limitless Exchange scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, Global. Restricted: United States, United Kingdom, France, Singapore, Poland, Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best prediction market shows where it lands for you.
What will Opinion (Opinion Labs) cost you?
$120 your cost/yr
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Trading spread
- 1%
$105 below the median of 6 priced prediction markets.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Opinion (Opinion Labs)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Opinion (Opinion Labs)
Compare all 4- 5Limitless Exchange11 points above · stronger on resolution (3 against 1)64$360
- 6Myriad Markets3 points above · stronger on resolution (3 against 1)56$240
- 7ADI PredictStreet1 point above · stronger on access (6 against 3)54
For your setup
Find out if Opinion (Opinion Labs) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Opinion (Opinion Labs) lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best prediction marketNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Opinion (Opinion Labs) ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (9.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
321+1.023.05#8/8Loading evidence…
263+2.504.58#6/8Loading evidence…
243+2.305.59#7/8Loading evidence…
186+3.464.57#3/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind ADI PredictStreet, #7
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 51–55 and ranks #7–#8
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Opinion (Opinion Labs)’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Resolution integrity 1 → 2 on its ladder · passes ADI PredictStreet+155#8 → #7
Regulatory access 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes ADI PredictStreet+155#8 → #7
Liquidity where you trade 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes ADI PredictStreet+155#8 → #7
Total trading cost 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes ADI PredictStreet+154#8 → #7
Smallest climb: resolution integrity 1 → 2 passes ADI PredictStreet, #7.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Total trading cost — 6/10, category best 7/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Resolution integrity — 1/10 against a category best of 5/10
- Regulatory access — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Liquidity where you trade — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Resolution, and it remains the weakest guarantee in this comparison even after crediting the dispute system that exists.
- Non-custodial and wallet-based on BNB Chain; no KYC and no fiat rails documented.
- No exploit or outage documented. The material finding is economic, not security: 30-day fees of $45,489 on $349.3M of reported volume on 14 Sep 2026 (~1.3bp…
Competitive position
Where Opinion (Opinion Labs) leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 820.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#7 / 87.0 of 30 · best 15.7
Friction#7 / 81.3 of 10 · best 4.7
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Opinion (Opinion Labs) leads
- Total trading cost#3 / 8
Where it trails
- Resolution integrity#8 / 8
- Regulatory access#6 / 8
- Liquidity where you trade#7 / 8
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
ADI PredictStreet#7 of 8 · score 54 · 1.0 point ahead
Opinion (Opinion Labs) leads on
- Total trading cost6 vs 1
ADI PredictStreet leads on
- Resolution integrity2 vs 1
- Regulatory access6 vs 3
- Liquidity where you trade4 vs 3
Largest single reason ADI PredictStreet is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: ADI PredictStreet has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Myriad Markets#6 of 8 · score 56 · 3.0 points ahead
Opinion (Opinion Labs) leads on
- Liquidity where you trade3 vs 1
- Total trading cost6 vs 4
Myriad Markets leads on
- Resolution integrity3 vs 1
Largest single reason Myriad Markets is ahead: friction (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Myriad Markets is +$120 against Opinion (Opinion Labs).
Limitless Exchange#5 of 8 · score 64 · 11.0 points ahead
Opinion (Opinion Labs) leads on
- Total trading cost6 vs 3
Limitless Exchange leads on
- Resolution integrity3 vs 1
- Regulatory access5 vs 3
- Liquidity where you trade5 vs 3
Largest single reason Limitless Exchange is ahead: published criteria (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: Limitless Exchange is +$240 against Opinion (Opinion Labs).
Against the leader
83 vs 53 · gap 30.0Why Kalshi ranks above Opinion (Opinion Labs)
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 30.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisKalshiGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.015.7−22.6, worse
Friction · 12% weight1.34.0−7.0, worse
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisKalshiPoints
Resolution integrity · w3215−4.10, worse
Regulatory access · w2638−4.16, worse
Liquidity where you trade · w2439−4.61, worse
Total trading cost · w1864+1.15, better
Net5383−30.0
Your scenario
What Opinion (Opinion Labs) costs on your scenario
Trading spread on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
$1k a month × 12 months × 1% trading spread = $120 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Trading spread · published rate1%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$120
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$2256 of 8 rows priced · Opinion (Opinion Labs) −$105 vs median
Cheapest priced$120 · Opinion (Opinion Labs)Opinion (Opinion Labs) is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
2 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 14 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #7 to #8 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Resolution integritystrength 1 · weight 32Report an error—14 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Regulatory accessstrength 3 · weight 26Report an error—14 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Liquidity where you tradestrength 3 · weight 24Report an error—14 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Total trading coststrength 6 · weight 18Report an error—14 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Oracle failure (Opinion (Opinion Labs) 1/10): a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.Scored by Resolution integrity · 32%
- Regulatory failure (Opinion (Opinion Labs) 3/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Regulatory access · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Liquidity where you trade (24%), Total trading cost (18%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Taker-only; makers pay zero. Official formula: effective rate = topic_rate x price x (1 - price) x (1 - user_discount) x (1 - transaction_discount) x (1 - referral_discount), then fee = max(notional x effective rate, $0.25). Documented range 0% to 1%, peaking at 50c. The binding cost for normal retail size is not the percentage but the $0.25 minimum fee floor combined with the $5 minimum order: on a $5 ticket that floor is 5% of notional, roughly five times the stated curve maximum, and it survives underneath discounts that otherwise stack to 100%.Opinion (Opinion Labs) — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDOpinion (Opinion Labs) — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global
- Restricted markets
- United States, United Kingdom, France, Singapore, Poland, Thailand, South Korea, Hong Kong
- Operating limits
- Non-custodial and wallet-based on BNB Chain; no KYC and no fiat rails documented. CORRECTION: geographic restrictions ARE published, in the Terms of Use rather than the product docs.
- Availability note
- Non-custodial and wallet-based on BNB Chain; no KYC and no fiat rails documented. CORRECTION: geographic restrictions ARE published, in the Terms of Use rather than the product docs. Restricted jurisdictions in the Terms of Use: US-sanctioned territories including Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, and the United States, United Kingdom, France, Ontario, Singapore, Poland, Thailand, South Korea, People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Opinion (Opinion Labs): where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 53, #8 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt prediction_markets:opinion:2026.10.18:58d25fc5e062
Are you Opinion (Opinion Labs)? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.