Solo Liquid

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

Why do people need Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State & Acting National Security Advisor, to explain basic common sense?
MOU is NOT a final agreement—it is just an outline of negotiation.

[Yu Lin @YL7931]

With all the "violation of integrity" evidence, the grouped activity, and the "clarification".
I would say it is not just UMA whales, but the Polymarket staff has a share in the matter.

It is obviously a POLYMARKET SCAM.
@ParetoPrincipl @willo2_Poly @0xDinoCrypto @Domahhhh @mustafap0ly @Autonomous_Chad @ceostroff @WSJ @BehindPoly @Kalshi @Polymarket @TRUTHONLYPOL @Teehbuddha

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

It’s obvious that you don't often read legal documents. You just picked a single sentence to base your conclusion on.
You should read and post the full rules and MOU. What you are arguing about is what constitutes a "qualifying or counted agreement" for “YES” resolution in this market.

And the rules state this clearly:
1.Right after the sentence you quoted, the rules immediately define exactly what kind of agreement WILL NOT count: "Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify."

2.The rules clearly state below what conditions ARE MET to establish a qualifying agreement. One of them is: "Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count."

3. Clause 1 of the MOU itself states: "The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph." This makes it crystal clear that this MOU is NOT the final deal.

4. Clause 3 of the MOU explicitly notes: "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent."

5. Finally, by any standard legal definition and common sense, an MOU is never considered a "definitive" agreement. It is, by its very nature, a statement of progress or a temporary framework.

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@Geoffreymutisy7 @Henrymbpt @TRUTHONLYPOL @FBI @TheJusticeDept @SECGov @CFTC @Polymarket Link expired, post again

[TRUTH @TRUTHONLYPOL]

✅Hello again, America! We have been offline for a while. We were permanently suspended for spreading false information. Our extensive appeal was denied, but our account is now available again.

#CryptoScam #ClassAction #IranPeaceMarket

We would like to share what happened this week. Our lawsuit is already en route. Our team has contacted four law firms. We have compiled a massive, multi-layered file containing all the necessary evidence. We'll soon submit a pre-trial claim to Polymarket's legal department. We are leaning toward #Polymarket rejecting the pre-trial settlement. Therefore, we're preparing for a full-scale trial. This will be a high-profile case. Give us some more time. Stay tuned. We've collected a huge amount of supporting evidence. Thanks to all the holders of "NO" and our team. A tremendous amount of work has been accomplished.

[NΞY THΞ BΛSQUΞ 🌍2️⃣ 🐳 @neythebasque]

@joostienXD So now @Polymarket doesn't pay just to make fake winning videos but also to say the market was well resolved 😬

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@joostienXD Here’s another Polymarket SCAM for you to whitewash. Keep up the good work.
https://t.co/XXeQXs5XRW

[Cesar @1Cryptoinsider]

@Polymarket @UMAprotocol

Hello Polymarket Support Team,

I am formally submitting a complaint regarding the handling of the following ceasefire-related markets:

Original market:
https://t.co/PUYJoI0hes

Related / newly created market:
https://t.co/vkk7okrUop

The creation of a second related ceasefire market while the original market remained disputed caused serious confusion among traders and materially impacted existing positions.

The original market rules clearly stated that:
- only a real and mutually agreed ceasefire qualifies,
- temporary pauses or humanitarian pauses do not qualify,
- unofficial statements or media speculation do not qualify,
- and there must be a clear and explicit halt of hostilities.

Despite these published rules, the market handling and resolution process became inconsistent and highly controversial.

Many users, including myself, believe that:
- the rules were not applied consistently,
- the second market changed trader expectations and damaged the integrity of the original market,
- users were left in unfair financial situations,
- and the overall resolution process lacked transparency.

Additionally, the creation of a duplicate-related market before the final and fully trusted resolution of the original market seriously damaged confidence in the market integrity and dispute resolution process itself.

At this stage, around 13 affected users are already coordinating potential legal action and collecting evidence connected to this incident.

We are NOT requesting money payouts.

We are specifically requesting that affected users’ SHARES from the disputed original market be transferred into the newer related ceasefire market as part of a fair resolution process.

Many traders entered positions believing these markets were directly connected in subject matter and outcome interpretation. Leaving users trapped in disputed positions while opening a second related market is not fair market practice.

We are requesting transparency, accountability, and a proper review of affected positions before this situation escalates further.

#Polymarket #UMA #PredictionMarkets #Crypto #Web3 #Blockchain #DeFi #CryptoNews #MarketIntegrity #ScamAlert

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

It’s obvious that you don't often read legal documents. You just picked a single sentence to base your conclusion on.
You should read and post the full rules and MOU. What you are arguing about is what constitutes a "qualifying or counted agreement" for “YES” resolution in this market.

And the rules state this clearly:
1.Right after the sentence you quoted, the rules immediately define exactly what kind of agreement WILL NOT count: "Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify."

2.The rules clearly state below what conditions ARE MET to establish a qualifying agreement. One of them is: "Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count."

3. Clause 1 of the MOU itself states: "The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph." This makes it crystal clear that this MOU is NOT the final deal.

4. Clause 3 of the MOU explicitly notes: "The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent."

5. Finally, by any standard legal definition and common sense, an MOU is never considered a "definitive" agreement. It is, by its very nature, a statement of progress or a temporary framework.

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

It’s obvious that you don't often read legal documents. You just picked a single sentence to base your conclusion on. You should read and post the full rules and MOU.
What you are arguing about is what constitutes a "qualifying or counted agreement" for “YES” resolution in this market.

And the rules state this clearly:
1.Right after the sentence you quoted, the rules immediately define exactly what kind of agreement WILL NOT count:
"Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify."

2.The rules clearly state below what conditions ARE MET to establish a qualifying agreement. One of them is: "Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count."

3. Clause 1 of the MOU itself states:
"The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph."
This makes it crystal clear that this MOU is NOT the final deal.

Fourth, Clause 3 of the MOU explicitly notes:
"The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent."

5. Finally, by any standard legal definition and common sense, an MOU is never considered a "definitive" agreement. It is, by its very nature, a statement of progress or a temporary framework.

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@grok Here is the official market rules signed by Polymarket regarding the 'US x Iran permanent peace deal'. Based on all live, publicly available global news updates right now, answer this strictly: Is the definitive outcome YES or NO? Provide a bulletproof logical breakdown.
https://t.co/XZXGG829gK

Rules:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran and the United states agree to a permanent peace deal by the specified date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.

A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease, or uses equivalent language clearly signaling a lasting end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran. Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify.

A qualifying agreement will be considered to have been established if either of the following conditions are met:

- The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.

- Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count.

The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the governments of the United States and Iran; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Market Opened: Apr 8, 2026, 12:11 PM ET

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@grok Here is the official market rules signed by Polymarket regarding the 'US x Iran permanent peace deal'. Based on all live, publicly available global news updates right now, answer this strictly: Is the definitive outcome YES or NO? Provide a bulletproof logical breakdown.
https://t.co/XZXGG829gK

Rules:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran and the United states agree to a permanent peace deal by the specified date, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”.

A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between the United States and Iran have ended or will permanently cease, or uses equivalent language clearly signaling a lasting end to military hostilities between the United States and Iran. Agreements that are explicitly temporary or which do not include a definitive agreement to end military hostilities between the US and Iran on a lasting basis (e.g. a temporary extension of the two-week ceasefire agreement announced on April 7, 2026), will not qualify.

A qualifying agreement will be considered to have been established if either of the following conditions are met:

- The United States and Iran each sign or formally adopt a written agreement (e.g. a treaty or multi-point agreement) which meets the above criteria.

- Both the governments of the United States and Iran provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. Negotiations, statements of progress, or other statements which do not constitute a definitive announcement that a qualifying agreement has been reached will not count.

The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the governments of the United States and Iran; however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Market Opened: Apr 8, 2026, 12:11 PM ET

[Financial Times @FT]

AI law firm wins UK court case for first time https://t.co/cLK0P0CkRV

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@koolcryptovc The latest scam I ran into

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

https://t.co/KbsWD2Aa2F

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@ceostroff @WSJ Two more polymarket cases for yor reference. (2/2)
https://t.co/XXeQXs5XRW

[Cesar @1Cryptoinsider]

@Polymarket @UMAprotocol

Hello Polymarket Support Team,

I am formally submitting a complaint regarding the handling of the following ceasefire-related markets:

Original market:
https://t.co/PUYJoI0hes

Related / newly created market:
https://t.co/vkk7okrUop

The creation of a second related ceasefire market while the original market remained disputed caused serious confusion among traders and materially impacted existing positions.

The original market rules clearly stated that:
- only a real and mutually agreed ceasefire qualifies,
- temporary pauses or humanitarian pauses do not qualify,
- unofficial statements or media speculation do not qualify,
- and there must be a clear and explicit halt of hostilities.

Despite these published rules, the market handling and resolution process became inconsistent and highly controversial.

Many users, including myself, believe that:
- the rules were not applied consistently,
- the second market changed trader expectations and damaged the integrity of the original market,
- users were left in unfair financial situations,
- and the overall resolution process lacked transparency.

Additionally, the creation of a duplicate-related market before the final and fully trusted resolution of the original market seriously damaged confidence in the market integrity and dispute resolution process itself.

At this stage, around 13 affected users are already coordinating potential legal action and collecting evidence connected to this incident.

We are NOT requesting money payouts.

We are specifically requesting that affected users’ SHARES from the disputed original market be transferred into the newer related ceasefire market as part of a fair resolution process.

Many traders entered positions believing these markets were directly connected in subject matter and outcome interpretation. Leaving users trapped in disputed positions while opening a second related market is not fair market practice.

We are requesting transparency, accountability, and a proper review of affected positions before this situation escalates further.

#Polymarket #UMA #PredictionMarkets #Crypto #Web3 #Blockchain #DeFi #CryptoNews #MarketIntegrity #ScamAlert

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@ceostroff @WSJ Two more polymarket cases for yor reference. (1/2)
https://t.co/yOOm9QJbxR

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

https://t.co/KbsWD2Aa2F

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@1Cryptoinsider @Polymarket @UMAprotocol Polymarket is scamming users in multiple cheap ways.

[Cesar @1Cryptoinsider]

@Polymarket @UMAprotocol

Hello Polymarket Support Team,

I am formally submitting a complaint regarding the handling of the following ceasefire-related markets:

Original market:
https://t.co/PUYJoI0hes

Related / newly created market:
https://t.co/vkk7okrUop

The creation of a second related ceasefire market while the original market remained disputed caused serious confusion among traders and materially impacted existing positions.

The original market rules clearly stated that:
- only a real and mutually agreed ceasefire qualifies,
- temporary pauses or humanitarian pauses do not qualify,
- unofficial statements or media speculation do not qualify,
- and there must be a clear and explicit halt of hostilities.

Despite these published rules, the market handling and resolution process became inconsistent and highly controversial.

Many users, including myself, believe that:
- the rules were not applied consistently,
- the second market changed trader expectations and damaged the integrity of the original market,
- users were left in unfair financial situations,
- and the overall resolution process lacked transparency.

Additionally, the creation of a duplicate-related market before the final and fully trusted resolution of the original market seriously damaged confidence in the market integrity and dispute resolution process itself.

At this stage, around 13 affected users are already coordinating potential legal action and collecting evidence connected to this incident.

We are NOT requesting money payouts.

We are specifically requesting that affected users’ SHARES from the disputed original market be transferred into the newer related ceasefire market as part of a fair resolution process.

Many traders entered positions believing these markets were directly connected in subject matter and outcome interpretation. Leaving users trapped in disputed positions while opening a second related market is not fair market practice.

We are requesting transparency, accountability, and a proper review of affected positions before this situation escalates further.

#Polymarket #UMA #PredictionMarkets #Crypto #Web3 #Blockchain #DeFi #CryptoNews #MarketIntegrity #ScamAlert

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@ByKLong @WSJ @neilmhta @ceostroff @brenna__smith @audrey_valbuena @daptx Glad to see you guys digging deeper into the Polymarket black box
https://t.co/yOOm9QJbxR

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

https://t.co/KbsWD2Aa2F

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

https://t.co/KbsWD2Aa2F

[Solo Liquid @Solo_Liquid]

@Teehbuddha They are same team. Same pocket.