What's interesting is that the main arguments from supporters of resolving the MicroStrategy market as No are essentially:
"Users could see that even after MicroStrategy announced the Bitcoin sale, the market was still trading at 60-80 cents rather than 99.5 cents, so they should have realized it was too good to be true."
"There was a similar precedent years ago, so users should have known this is how Polymarket handles such situations."
In other words, the conclusion is that "Yes buyers only have themselves to blame."
When Polymarket embraces this line of reasoning, they're shooting themselves in the foot.
You'll never attract millions of active users if successful participation requires studying thousands of historical markets, learning every obscure nuance of UMA resolution practices and understanding the entire internal politics of the Polymarket's "deep state."
People want simplicity and transparency.
Prediction markets are supposed to be entertainment first and foremost.
If participating starts feeling like navigating House of Cards-style political intrigue, the whole thing will eventually collapse under its own complexity - just like every house of cards eventually does.