GOAT @GOATSBNB Dip Alert 💸 Could be an entry point, it’s at 370k MC, keep on tabs, do your own research but looks good to start adding. Tax: 3/3 dexscreener.com/bsc/0xfADAe4… 0xbb4E0C2a700CF085a0f3BeE49f70D94D9Cfa6666

GOAT @GOATSBNB GOAT LAUNCHED and did 34x right after opening the chart, its around 15x-16x 530-550k mc. Keep the chart on tabs, watch entries. dexscreener.com/bsc/0xfADAe4…

Goat @goatsbnb GOAT is launching today at 2pm UTC with an IMC of 35k. 0xbb4E0C2a700CF085a0f3BeE49f70D94D9Cfa6666 dexscreener.com/bsc/0xfADAe4…

🤝 Partnership Announcement 🤚 CheesePad x @Debot_Official is LIVE! 🧀 Discover & trade every $CheesePad token directly in the BSC trench on Debot faster, smoother, with way more eyes on every launch. 🚀 More reach. More volume. More cheese. 🐭🔥 #CheesePad #Debot #BSC

Bitcoin won't be "dead" for too long. Don't panic, in large friendly letters.

Before fake hype and capsules took over the meme universe, there was Dog Planet the home of the original meme culture. A world where legendary meme dogs like MILO, BabyDoge, and FLOKI built memes around fun, loyalty, and community. Then Pump Planet arrived. Dog Planet was destroyed. But before the planet burned away, BabyDoge and FLOKI saved one final survivor. Mame Inu. "The last Shiba" Years later, Mame awakens in a fake meme world ruled by manipulation, endless hype, and capsules. Nobody remembers the real meme culture anymore. But Mame does. And now he’s here to bring it back.

🧀 WE'RE OFFICIALLY LABELED ON BSCSCAN ✅ A milestone for the CheesePad family today 🎉 Our official Lock contract is now recognized and labeled by @bscscan ✅ Verified on-chain identity 🔒 Every lock transparent, traceable, recognized 🔍 One-click verification for projects & holders Lock it. Launch it. Trust it. 🧀 #BSC #CheesePad #BNBChain

I am very surprised that @Polymarket, having raised $2 billion in funding, would rather be known for flippantly changing market rules on the fly ...than owning up to their giant fuck-up and paying a comparatively tiny $3.8 million to users who placed bets they should have won.

🧀 CheesePad just got its own tab on @AveaiGlobal Pro Markets You already knew us on Ave now every launch from the pad has a dedicated home on BNB Chain: ✅ Live CheesePad feed ✅ Trend charts KOL / Smart Money signals ✅ MC, Liq, Holders, 24h vol ✅ 1m / 5m / 1h filters The mouse chases success. The cheese fuels innovation. 🐭🧀 👉 pro.ave.ai/markets

I've given Polymarket a week to solve this amicably. Complete radio silence. Thank you to everyone DMing me with evidence. I am slowly working through DMs and will be putting a recovery group together today. Please bear with. This week we played defence. Next week, offence.

@Polymarket has some explaining to do with their "No" resolution on @Strategy selling BTC by May 31st. They did sell 32 $BTC

I bet $500,000 on Polymarket that Microstrategy sold Bitcoin in May. Evidence came out while the market was open. Legally confirmed. Then Polymarket changed the rules, and refused to pay. Last chance to do the right thing @shayne_coplan. Where's my fucking money?

Guys, I am assembling a team. I'm going to take the lead on spearheading a recovery effort for all YES holders on the May MSTR market. If you have been affected by the May MSTR market (held YES), please get in touch with me via DM/email (in bio).

Good news. @TheBlockCo has now reported on the Polymarket / Strategy Bitcoin sale dispute, covering both my case and @willo2_Poly’s case. They also stated that they have contacted Polymarket for comment. This is no longer just a few users complaining on X. The issue is now being reported by one of the most respected crypto media outlets. Link: theblock.co/post/403312/poly…

研究了 Polymarket 争议，发现这根本不是在预测「真实事件是否发生」，而是变成预测「事件是否会及时公告」。 简单事情经过：Polymarket 有个事件是「微策略是否会在 5/31 之前出售比特币｣，那公司在 6/1 发出 8-K 文档，说明已经在 5/26~5/31 卖出 32 颗比特币。 所以这题的答案，应该显示为 Yes，Microstrategy 是在 5/31 前出售了比特币。 但是到了 Polymarket 上变成了 No，因为他们认为，不可以使用到期时间后才出现的证据，否则很难定义时间界线，也会有严重的操纵风险。 在我看来就是毫无道理，完全诡辩。 1️⃣ 首先题目问的就是「有没有卖」而不是「在 5/31 前是否宣布」加上微策略公告在 5/26~5/31 这之间卖了，那就是卖了。这没有争论的地方。 2️⃣ 这事件的规则，Polymarket 原先列的是 「MSTR 官方信息 on-chain data 可信报导」那链上数据就可以成为判断标准。现在却弱化了链上数据，说「确认在期限后才出现所以不算」 3️⃣ 终局性还是真实性，我认为不应该为了容易结算事件资金，而忽略客观事实，等于牺牲正确性，这违背预测市场最基本的精神，预测真实世界的事件是否发生，我们不是在预测什幺时候发新闻稿。 4️⃣ 支持Polymarket 一方表示，这是他们常用的先例。但是这连法律上「类推适用」都过不了，规则文本就是没有这条。先例本就不能凌驾契约文本，你用先例去添加规则，我认为是不当类推，甚至更可恶算是法官造法了。 说一个更搞笑的是，部分支持者认为玩Polymarket 的用户，都应该进到 Discord 聊天，不然他们不知道这个先例，就是他们不够用功努力，活该亏钱。 不是本来就应该把规则放在网页上，供大家自行判断吗? 我就没听过哪个交易所说，玩合约还要来我们聊天室，我们这里还有更多规则，你不知道活该亏钱？ 5️⃣ 支持方认为套用未来的证据，这样太难结算事件了，会导致资金卡住。你不知道 Microstrategy 固定每周一发布 8-k 报告的习惯吗？ 就Polymarket 平台上等过多少几周的财报，各种数据才结算，这个等一天就不行了啊？ 6️⃣ 市场需要客观且可预测的标准，这是他们自己说的。那在5/31结束后，他们依然没有关闭事件，还可以买卖，他们说这是他们的失误，让人们误以为还可以进行下注，但其实事件是在等待结果。 最后还 PUA 你几句，这是个糟糕的系统吗？没错！但他们不是「故意」继续开放市场的。这不是他们事后添加规则，你只是不知道这些规则而已。是你对他们不够熟悉（又是用户的错） 你是一个平台新手啊，你不了解这些不成文的规定，被割一下很正常的？你阅读完网站所有规则，很认真以为自己找到 Alpha 其实你只是过度自信。 ( 真是非常厉害的情绪操纵 PUA 呢） 7️⃣ Polymarket 的争议解决最终由 $UMA 持有者投票决定。那既然不能预测真实事件是否发生，那是不是只能预测这些持有 UMA 代币的人会怎么投票解决争议？那这些东西还有啥意义？ 这就很像你是卖家，你把货物准时5/31 送到买家仓库，但买家 6/1 才去点收，他告诉大家他收到了。你会因此而被判定 6/1 才送货物吗？肯定不会嘛，道理很简单，真实事件发生了。 我的法律训练不管给我怎么推演，我都不觉得他这个类推是合乎法律逻辑的。 如果一个连真实事件真相都不重要的平台，那你还要去预测什么？在这样的预测市场，去做任何预测根本就是搞笑。 到目前为止 Polymarket 都还没有制定并公开明确的解决指南，他们只是任由这些事情发生，不断的有人损失钱。他们只是告诉你，有争议就 UMA 持有者解决，所以这一切都是操纵的游戏。 我支持这只鸟，上法院吧。

If @Polymarket logic is accepted, the market should have been closed on May 26. Because unless Michael @saylor ran naked in the street screaming “I sold BTC,” no one could know before the SEC 8-K was filed. So under their interpretation, any sale in the final week of May would always resolve NO until the next business-day disclosure. That is not what the rule said. The rule asked whether Strategy sold Bitcoin by May 31. Not whether the world discovered it by May 31. People arguing otherwise should read the rule again. #StopPolyScam

The Mental Gymnastics required to believe that Polymarket made the right call are ridiculous. Polymarket, fix this.

Here's my honest opinion on the MSTR market resolution. It will close NO. 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. Even if UMA voters think that this outcome is ridiculous... they are forced to ratify it. They must abide by the rules that Polymarket wrote. So really... in 5 hours, we simply receive confirmation that UMA is forced to follow centralized Polymarket decisionmaking. Polymarket can change the rules, at any time, for any reason, and UMA are forced to respect it. No voting needed. So is UMA really that independent? Does UMA hold any power whatsoever? Not really. It's puppet decentralization so that Polymarket can shift dispute blame onto a separate entity. This market most likely closes NO in 5 hours. But that doesn't change anything. The scam already occurred. Clearly, the way that this gets solved will not be through Polymarket's internal processes. So let's take it to the next level. In my opinion, Polymarket made a massive mistake here by changing the rules so brazenly. They fucked up... BAD. If you're going to rely on a system that offloads dispute blame to another entity, you shouldn't take it upon yourself to cut that entity out of the resolution process. Now, the blame falls entirely on Polymarket's shoulders. This really isn't a difficult argument to make. Any rational individual who looks at this market can conclude that Polymarket themselves now have the responsibility of this market's resolution. Big mistake, and that's what makes this case very different from prior UMA voting disputes. You can't hide behind UMA now. Polymarket markets are resolved according to a set of pre-defined and stated rules. Polymarket themselves modified these market rules. The clarification materially changed the conditions for a Yes outcome after trading had already occurred. Polymarket's own documentation says clarifications "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question." Clearly, this one did. Polymarket, your time is running out.

BUT Polymarket has already overturned an UMA resolution before back in 2024 the market "Was Barron Trump involved in $DJT?" was resolved to "No" by UMA. but after the resolution, it became clear that Barron was in fact involved in some capacity instead of hiding behind the oracle result, Polymarket publicly stated that the market had not resolved to the truth. they refunded YES holders and paid them out despite UMA's official outcome reasoning was simple: as prediction markets become an important source of information, getting to the truth matters more than blindly following a flawed oracle resolution. point isn't whether that decision was right or wrong. point is that there is already a precedent where Polymarket stepped in after an UMA resolution because they believed the outcome did not reflect reality. so when people say "UMA decides and that's the end of it," it's worth remembering that Polymarket itself has taken a different view in the past but this situation is a bit different, since we're already seeing the team's view reflected in the market comments so 10 hours and we will see the result