Will @Polymarket finally take this into account ?
A 20yrs old Trader @0xDinoCrypto went big on " Yes " with ~$35k on the Polymarket Market that '' MicroStrategy would sell any Bitcoin by May 31, 2026.'' (which they did).
Has Sent a formal legal demand letter to Polymarket and Filed complaints with the FBI, CFTC, and FTC.
Also says he’ll keep fighting through every legal/regulatory channel.
The issue has now escalated a to real legal and regulatory complaints, curious to see his next moves
Do you think they will take him serious and finally answer him ?
I have decided to speak publicly.
I am 20 years old. I am a second-year undergraduate student at King’s College London.
I am not a fund. I am not an institution. I am not a professional trader with a team behind me. I am just a student who read the market rule carefully and believed the English words meant what they said.
I put around 35,000 USDC into YES on the Polymarket market about whether MicroStrategy sold any Bitcoin by May 31, 2026.
I did not do that because I was gambling blindly. I did it because I read the rule. I read it again. And again.
The rule said YES if MicroStrategy sold any Bitcoin by May 31.
It did not say the sale had to be publicly disclosed by May 31. It did not say there had to be an SEC filing before the deadline. It did not say later evidence would not count.
To me, that matters.
I have studied enough to know that words matter. Rules matter. English matters. If a market writes one condition before people trade, then after the outcome adds another condition through “context,” ordinary users have no protection.
Without adding extra market context after the fact, I still do not understand how this market can fairly resolve to NO.
These 35,000 USDC are not just numbers on a screen to me. This money matters to my life. I cried for an entire night. I felt helpless in a way I have never felt before. I even had thoughts of ending my life.
But I am still here.
I am still here because I realized this cannot just be about me. If I disappear, the story disappears. If everyone stays quiet, the next person will be alone too. The next market will happen. The next unclear resolution will happen. The next ordinary user will be told to accept it and move on.
That is why I started #StopPolyScam.
Some people contacted me and told me to launch a meme coin around this. I refused.
I do not want people’s money.
I do not want to turn anger into another token.
I only want fairness.
I want Polymarket to answer one question in plain language:
Where did the written rule say “publicly disclosed by May 31”?
If that rule exists, show it.
If it does not exist, then users should not lose because of a condition that was never written before they traded.
I am asking journalists, lawyers, crypto researchers, public figures, exchange founders, and anyone with influence to look at this carefully. Do not believe me blindly. Look at the rule. Look at the timeline. Look at the evidence. Then ask whether this is how a serious market should work.
I know I am small. I know I may lose. I know many powerful people may ignore this.
But I also know that if written rules can be changed by interpretation after money is already in, then no user is safe.
A market without trust is just a machine that takes risk from ordinary people and gives them silence when they ask questions.
I am not asking for sympathy.
I am asking for fairness.
I am asking for accountability.
I am asking people to help me make sure this does not disappear quietly.
If you can help, please contact:
[email protected]
Rule before trade.
#StopPolyScam
Everyone speaks about the market that should resolve to YES on @Polymarket today
Strategy sold 32 BTC between May 26 and May 31
8-K filed June 1, timestamps the sale as "of May 31, 4PM ET"
inside the window. first sale since 2022.
and @Polymarket is about to resolve the market as NO because the disclosure hit one day after the deadline.
let's be real about what this is
> $253M in volume on just the May 31 market
> 19,843 YES holders at 0.4¢ right now
> two NO proposals already disputed by the community
> a trader publicly disclosed buying 49,695 YES shares for $35K USDC after reading on-chain activity
> Polymarket added the clarification "confirmation outside the timeframe doesn't count" AFTER the dispute started
paying out the YES holders costs a few million. it's not nothing, but it will be recovered in no time.
most of the winners will put it back into the platform within weeks.
But resolving NO by quietly retrofitting the rules at the last minute costs the one thing prediction markets actually need: TRUST.
> community walks
> traders take the case to court (already happening)
> every future market gets read by lawyers, not gamblers
> UMA's token voting model gets exposed even harder than the WSJ already did
the sale happened. Strategy's own filing says it did.
the only argument for NO is "we didn't know yet" which is the exact opposite of how event based contracts have always resolved.
@Polymarket built something real here.
losing it over retroactive rule interpretation is the kind of mistake you don't come back from.
13 hours to final review. do the right thing.
resolve YES. the next 1000 markets are watching
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.