I know it's a tough situation, but the fairest resolution for everyone involved is for @Polymarket to pay out both sides. In exceptional cases like this, protecting market integrity and user trust should take priority over a strict binary settlement.
I’m 20 years old, still a university student.
Before this dispute, I was one of the top 10 YES holders in the Polymarket MicroStrategy market. I lost around 35,000 USDC because I trusted the written rule.
The rule said YES if MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin by May 31.
It did not say the sale had to be publicly disclosed by May 31.
That is the whole issue.
If you want to help:
Repost this.
Tag a journalist.
Tag a lawyer.
Send this to a crypto researcher.
Submit your case if you were affected.
https://t.co/pmXUtr9jFD
Silence is what platforms count on.
Don’t give them that.
$500K lost.
original rules said MSTR info = valid source.
Jun 1: Polymarket quietly added new rules mid-market.
Jun 1: resolved No.
but the final decision belongs to UMA token holders.
welcome to "decentralized" prediction markets.
If Polymarket's WANTED to scam their users, how would they have acted any differently?
Most likely, they would have done exactly what they did on the MSTR market.
The purpose of a system is what it does. PolyScam.
If @Polymarket@PolymarketTrade don’t settle this market as YES, legitimately and honestly, I’m done and will move to Kalshi.
This is blatant fraud.
The original rules stated: “MicroStrategy will sell Bitcoin before May 31 at 11:59 PM.” It has been proven they sold 32 BTC. Nowhere did it state that the sale had to be announced by that deadline.
They did exactly what the market said within the required time frame. Only after the deadline passed did a new requirement appear—that the sale had to be publicly announced during that same period.
You can’t make up new rules after the fact when you lose.
That’s like changing the rules of a football game in the 4th quarter because you don’t like the score.
The event happened exactly as written within the specified time frame, so this market should settle YES.
If it doesn’t, Internet & X is going to riot.
Good morning guys.
If you keep a market open for trading, you should accept evidence that comes out within that timeframe.
If my trades were valid,
The legally issued proof from MSTR should be as well.
Otherwise you're scamming users.
Do the right thing Polymarket
Current UMA vote is almost entirely NO.
But everyone should think clearly about one basic fact:
The only real basis for NO is Polymarket’s newly added rules after the market was already live.
That means this vote is not happening on equal ground.
Traders relied on the original written rules. Polymarket changed the interpretive framework after people had already placed their money.
This is not a fair resolution process.
@TheSignalSage "AAPL didn't sell any iPhones in Q2, because they didn't report it until August" - we know that they sold btc, AND the market is not closed. If it was closed on May 31 11:59, that's a clear scenario, but this is not the case.
@0xashensoul@Polymarket@PolymarketTrade What was misleading? The wording was not misleading at all, it stated that if MSTR sells until May 31, it is resolving to YES. The market stayed opened after, so it should be YES