Olivia
Online
otO
@0tttO
Joined March 2015
356 Following
130 Followers
213 Posts
@elonmusk the audio quality is still shit
@Polymarket https://t.co/L0pWESSwvU these results look unusual and unfair. How can you check?
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/zNMgEgpWMB
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
@Polymarket 🚨Polymarket is violating its own rules to benefit insiders. Evidence:
https://t.co/Tjwjklk0I6
https://t.co/Ur41Spt7NP
This market is not about whether a ceasefire “effectively happened.” It is about whether the resolution criteria were actually met within the defined timeframe.
The rules are clear: there must be explicit, public confirmation from both governments before the 11:59 PM ET deadline. This is a binary condition. Either it happened in time, or it didn’t.
If any confirmation came after the deadline, it simply doesn’t count. Deadlines are absolute in rule-based markets. Allowing anything after the cutoff to influence the result breaks the integrity of the system.
Pointing to media coverage, indirect statements, or calling it a “de facto ceasefire” doesn’t meet the criteria. The rules don’t ask for interpretation or assumptions. They require clear and explicit bilateral confirmation.
A “de facto ceasefire” is irrelevant unless both sides publicly confirmed it within the deadline. Anything else is just trying to reinterpret the rules after the fact.
If outcomes start being decided by narrative instead of what’s written, then the market stops being rule-based and becomes subjective. And once that happens, the whole idea of a trustless system falls apart.
This isn’t about opinion. It’s about applying the rules as they are written.
If there was no bilateral public confirmation before the deadline, then the conditions were not met.
The correct resolution is No.
🚨 Polymarket Has Lost Its Fucking Mind!
A @Polymarket market about whether US forces enter Iran by April 30 already has $241 million in volume… and this entire thing will be decided by UMA — a tiny governance token with a market cap of only ~$35 million.
Let that sink in.
A quarter of a billion dollars on one of the most serious geopolitical questions in the world is controlled by a microcap token that whales can easily buy and manipulate.
This means a few rich assholes can literally decide the outcome of a $241M market with their wallet.
They already rigged the Trump-Xi market in front of everyone.
Now they’re doing it with a potential war.
And @Polymarket? They’re just sitting there, watching it happen, pretending everything is fine.
This isn’t a prediction market anymore.
This is a whale-owned rigged casino playing with fire.
Polymarket isn’t ignoring the manipulation — they’re enabling it.
https://t.co/yypqakBw1k
#FactsOverVotes #PolymarketScandal #UMAManipulation #WhaleCartel
Hey @shayne_coplan
You’ve built - and continue to build - an excellent product.
But right now, there’s real chaos happening on a number of markets in @Polymarket
In the event https://t.co/czPscxm56R, UMA token stakers are currently voting on the outcome. It’s ridiculous that the fate of a market with $120 million in trading volume is being decided by holders of a token with a market cap of only $42 million.
If you subtract the exchanges and the team holdings, the actual stakers probably control no more than $20 million worth of tokens. And these holders who influence Polymarket resolutions are very likely participating in the bets themselves. That means the most interested parties are the ones deciding the outcome.
How can they possibly make a fair and honest decision when their own profits are on the line?
Is this really the kind of decentralization we were aiming for, Shayne?
It would be much better if you appointed 7 anonymous experts who would vote on disputed markets in a balanced and objective way - instead of letting random UMA token holders decide the fate of a billion-dollar platform!
By the way, I remember @Tyler_Did_It ran into a similar problem about a year ago.
Below, I’ll explain why this market should resolve as NO:
What actually happened on the evening of April 7, 2026:
•Around 6:30–7:00 PM ET, President Trump posted on Truth Social. He offered to suspend U.S. bombing and attacks on Iran for two weeks, but only if Iran agreed to the complete, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
He called it a “double-sided ceasefire” and described Iran’s 10-point plan as a “workable basis for negotiations.” Trump added that most issues were nearly resolved and the two weeks would be used to finalize a full agreement.
•Iran’s Supreme National Security Council released its statement on April 8 (after midnight ET). They accepted the two-week ceasefire but framed it as a “great victory,” claiming the U.S. had fully accepted their 10-point plan.
Why this is NOT a full official agreement:
•It was a conditional, unilateral announcement by Trump — the pause in strikes depends on Iran immediately reopening the Strait.
•No signed joint document or official bilateral statement exists.
•The White House later clarified that Iran’s original 10-point plan was “fundamentally unserious,” “unacceptable,” and “thrown in the garbage.” What Trump called “workable” was a revised version negotiated via Pakistan.
•Both sides interpret the deal very differently (especially on sanctions, uranium enrichment, Lebanon, and U.S. troop withdrawal).
@AtriA33AirtA @shayne_coplan @Polymarket Come on guys, we need to spread this and make it visible in order for @shayne_coplan to see this post !
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
pemulahehe
Seen from Malaysia
PEMBURU TUBUH STW
Seen from Indonesia
LUCİFER 
Seen from Turkey
Huddle - Coworking & Private Offices
Seen from United States
Nelly Brandon
Seen from United States
mulut becek
Seen from Germany
Bbydoll xtine
Seen from United States
Minh Hào
Seen from Vietnam
Alya Byla
Seen from United States
Amala
Seen from India
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
113.8M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.7M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
72.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
65.8M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.7M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers