Polymarket's UMA vote upholds 'No' outcome on Strategy bitcoin sale market despite backlash

Polymarket has upheld a "No" outcome in the final review of a controversial market asking whether Michael Saylor's Strategy would sell any bitcoin by May 31, fueling further backlash among traders on social media.

On Wednesday, the market concluded its final review in a UMA vote — a mechanism used to resolve disputed markets on the platform. About 98.6% of voting power supported a "No" outcome.

The event contract drew scrutiny after resolving to "No" twice previously, where both outcomes were subsequently challenged.

The dispute centers on Strategy's disclosure that it sold 32 BTC for roughly $2.5 million between May 26 and May 31, marking the firm's first bitcoin sale since December 2022. The company revealed the bitcoin sale in an 8-K filing on June 1.

Traders supporting a "Yes" resolution argued that the filing confirmed the sale occurred before the May 31 deadline specified by the market. Those backing the other side suggested that the information was not made public until after the market's deadline, and therefore, the market should resolve to "No."

Polymarket on June 1 updated the market page with an additional context note, stating: "Confirmation achieved outside of the market's time frame does not qualify."

Backlash

Polymarket's repeated "No" resolution has fueled frustration among traders.

Multiple traders have turned to social media campaigns on X, circulating hashtags such as "PolyScam" in the hope of bringing wider attention to the controversy.

Before the final vote concluded, one trader known as pseudonym "willo2" argued on X that UMA voters had no choice but to honor the platform's own rules.

"Even if UMA voters think that this outcome is ridiculous... they are forced to ratify it," said willo2. "This is because UMA is forced to respect the rules as written by Polymarket. Polymarket changed the rules, and now the outcome is literally in the rules."

The trader claimed to have lost $500,000 after Polymarket allegedly kept the market open for betting on June 1, prompting him to place large "Yes" bets.

Another user, 0xDinosaur, also wrote on X that the market should be resolved based on the actual transaction rather than the timing of the disclosure, later issuing a legal "notice of dispute and demand for review" to the platform. The trader had bought 49,695.76 "Yes" shares for around 35,000 USDC, per the post.

"My position was aggressive, and maybe I was greedy," 0xDinosaur wrote. "But risk-taking does not change the facts, and it does not allow a platform to apply an unclear or unwritten rule after real money has already been placed."

This controversy highlights the matter of transparency, rule clarity, and trust in prediction market platforms.

"The core issue is whether the original rules (event-based) or the post-trade clarification (confirmation-based) governs," Galaxy Research wrote on X. "Traders correctly predicted the future. The platform is about to tell them they were wrong anyway."

Galaxy Research weighed in on the incident by saying that the resolution integrity of event contracts trumps any single outcome.

"Prediction markets should price what happens, not how the oracle will reinterpret rules after the fact," said Galaxy. "We outline clear fixes: lock criteria at listing, deterministic resolution for verifiable events, and structural changes ahead of CFTC regulation."

The Block has reached out to Polymarket for comment.