Polymarket did not respond to a request for comment.
Launched in 2020, Polymarket rose to prominence Last year as a way for people to bet on the outcome of the US presidential election. During the selection cycle, a polymarket and its advocates Fixed forecast markets As a superior method of predicting results than traditional voting – as more effective “Source of truth.But that proposition was challenged by the Zelensky costume.
“Everyone knows the answer … but the system is currently broken,” claims defiance. “It’s a nasty situation.”
Polymarket reserves the right to overturn UMA result. Last year, the company canceled uma voting About betting on whether Barron Trump was involved in Trump-themed Cryptocurrency project. At the time, a polymer chair Refunded bettors and explicitly described Uma’s conclusion as “wrong.” The company, however, did not step every time. In March, a bet $ 7 million on whether Ukraine and the United States would reach a mineral approach agreement Prematurely resolved with the wrong result. At that time, in a disagreement message addressed to affected users, a polymercate employee called it a “unprecedented situation” But said it would not repay us.
Polymarket users aggravated by the probable result of the Zelensky’s forecast market gather on disagreement of message platforms to coordinate response, perhaps including following a lawsuit against Polymarket and Uma, they claim.
“I intend to join the lawsuit,” says a polymerist polymer of the username opponent, who at one stage stood to earn $ 300,000 by their bet, before they took out some funds in response to the confusion. “I experienced moral damage because of this debate and the added context caused me great stress.”
People in Uma’s disagreement channel are similarly revealed by the controversy, with community members accusing each other of “backchannel -offers” and frauds. Some regard it as a rampant referendum on the whole project. “This is not just a vote on litigation – it is the vote on Uma’s future,” one member wrote.
The final resolution is expected by the evening of July 8th. The co -founder of Uma, Hart Lumbur, says the organization plans to make adjustments to the dispute resolution process following Zelensky’s controversy, but rejects the allegation that the vote was somehow manipulated.
“There is no evidence of Uma’s manipulation. I really don’t like those worthless accusations,” Lambur says to Wired. “After the dust settles on this suit or non-market, I look forward to having a productive conversation on improvements and project compromises.”
Others see this kind of disagreement as a natural part of the process: “For me this was a jacket that looked like a suit, but there was no suit,” says Lancelot Chardonnet, who voted as a delegate on behalf of the Uma.Rocks pool of Uma.Rocks, which controls about 0.1 percent of the entire supply. “This controversy simply reflects that the truth is complex and differs from one person to another.”
All this heat arrives at a critical moment for Polymarket, who is in the middle of an aggressive bundle circle led by Peter Thiel’s fund; According to Reuters, the forecast market will be appreciated at $ 1 billion. It is not an ideal time to alienate any of its most active users, or for the integrity of its markets. “The silence of a polymarket was deaf,” a defipolice says.
