M

Jesus Is King.

[M @shadow33377]

@Va77ss @Polymarket Polymarket's OWN documentation (https://t.co/Y2AG01Wzx4 → "Clarifications") states an "Additional context" update "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question."

[M @shadow33377]

@shukan_no @th33m3rald3dg3 It's no longer just "the rules were ambiguous, construe against the drafter" — it's now "Polymarket broke its own documented policy on what a clarification is allowed to do."

[M @shadow33377]

@LooNell @Polymarket @Jpegtrader_ @CrispPredict @yellowpantherx @PolymarketTrade @Pathfinding_AI

[M @shadow33377]

@LooNell @Polymarket @Jpegtrader_ @CrispPredict @yellowpantherx @PolymarketTrade Polymarket's own resolution docs (Concepts → Resolution → "Clarifications") state an "Additional context" update CANNOT change the fundamental intent of a question.

MSTR sold May 26–31 per their own 8-K. The market asked about the SALE — not the announcement.

[M @shadow33377]

@LooNell @Polymarket @Jpegtrader_ @CrispPredict @yellowpantherx @PolymarketTrade @BTCBeliever21

[M @shadow33377]

@LooNell @Polymarket @Jpegtrader_ @CrispPredict @yellowpantherx @PolymarketTrade @Bkclaims

[M @shadow33377]

@scottmelker @econoar @Domahhhh @willo2_Poly @th33m3rald3dg3 @fozzydiablo @Polymarket @HyperliquidX @HyperFND @mansourtarek_ @CFTC @SECGov @ChairmanSelig @MichaelSelig @Kalshi @PredictIt @UMAprotocol @PythNetwork @CoinDesk @DecryptMedia @TheBlockCo @Benzinga @DefiantNews @crypto @0xDinoCrypto @emilyjnicolle

[M @shadow33377]

Polymarket is resolving a $50M+ market AGAINST its own primary source AND its own rulebook.
"MicroStrategy sells any Bitcoin by May 31?" Strategy's own SEC filing: sold 32 BTC, May 26–31. Inside the window.
They're calling it NO. Receipts below 🧵

[M @shadow33377]

@scottmelker @econoar @Domahhhh @willo2_Poly @th33m3rald3dg3 @fozzydiablo @Polymarket @HyperliquidX @HyperFND @mansourtarek_ @CFTC @SECGov @ChairmanSelig @MichaelSelig @Kalshi @PredictIt @UMAprotocol @PythNetwork @CoinDesk @DecryptMedia @TheBlockCo @Benzinga @DefiantNews

[M @shadow33377]

The sale happened in-window. Their own source proves it. Their own docs forbid the rewrite. A legal demand's already filed.
Resolve YES — or admit the rulebook is decoration, and watch users walk to Kalshi & Hyperliquid.
@Polymarket

[M @shadow33377]

Changing the terms AFTER money's down isn't just bad faith — it raises real questions.
A YES holder down ~$35K has already filed a formal legal demand (contra proferentem: ambiguity reads against the drafter).
You don't get to rewrite the bet after the bell.

[M @shadow33377]

Why this keeps happening:
Bloomberg: ~9 wallets cast roughly HALF of all UMA votes — always together, always the winning side. WSJ: ~1 in 5 disputes had a voter holding a position in the market they were judging.
Not a court. A casino judging its own bets.

[M @shadow33377]

This isn't salty bagholders. It's the room:
Scott Melker: "obviously wrong… they sold before May was over." Eric Conner: "structurally broken." Domer (pro Kalshi trader): "comically broken at this point."

[M @shadow33377]

Same filing. Same sale.
The June 30 and Dec 31 versions of this exact market resolved YES — no dispute.
Only May 31, the month-end one, got flipped to NO.
One sale. Three contracts. Two opposite rulings. Decided by a filing calendar.

[M @shadow33377]

The rule: resolves YES if MSTR "sells any Bitcoin by 11:59pm ET May 31." It says SELLS. Not "announces." Not "confirms."
The 8-K dates the sale "as of May 31, 4:00pm ET."
Their June 1 note quietly swapped "did they sell" → "was it announced." Goalposts moved.

[M @shadow33377]

Polymarket's OWN documentation (https://t.co/Y2AG01Wzx4) says an "additional context" update "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question."
Then they posted "additional context" that did exactly that.
Their rule. Not mine.

[M @shadow33377]

@willo2_Poly @willo2_Poly
https://t.co/Y2AG01Wzx4 → "Clarifications": an "Additional context" update "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question."

- Polymarket has broken its own documented policy.

[M @shadow33377]

@0xDinoCrypto @0xDinoCrypto

https://t.co/Y2AG01Wzx4 → "Clarifications": an "Additional context" update "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question."

- Polymarket has broken its own documented policy.

[M @shadow33377]

@willo2_Poly @Kalshi Kalshi, for us users in polymarket, please investigate this matter and tell us how Kalshi would resolve this