Legal review is moving forward after further discussions.
This dispute is no longer only about one trader or one losing position. It may raise serious legal issues across multiple jurisdictions because Polymarket created the market, wrote the rules, accepted real user funds, and then appears to be applying a disclosure-timing condition that was never clearly written into the market.
Under U.S. contract law principles, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, parties must perform agreements in a way that does not undermine the reasonable expectations created by the written terms. U.S. law also recognizes contra proferentem, meaning ambiguous language is generally interpreted against the drafter. If Polymarket drafted “sells any Bitcoin by May 31,” then it should not later benefit from ambiguity by treating it as “discloses by May 31.”
This issue may also be relevant under consumer protection and unfair terms frameworks in other jurisdictions. Under the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms and unclear consumer-facing terms can be scrutinized where they create imbalance against users. Under EU consumer contract principles, standard terms must be drafted in plain, intelligible language, and ambiguity is generally interpreted in favor of consumers. Similar good-faith and fair-dealing concepts also exist in common-law jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, and Singapore.
The point is simple: if a platform writes the market, controls the interface, defines the resolution sources, and takes fees from users, it cannot later rely on an unwritten condition to defeat the ordinary meaning of its own rule.
The rule said “sells.” It did not say “discloses,” “files an 8-K,” “announces,” or “publicly confirms before May 31.”
I will continue preserving evidence, improving legal materials, speaking with counsel, and pursuing every lawful path available.
If the rule says “sells,” then the event is the sale.