We have 2 markets. Same rules - different clarifications. Traders get screwed over. Let's sink into it. First market — "What will Trump say during Fox Business interview on April 15?". We have rules - "The resolution source will be video of the events. Only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution." And we have clarification - "Prerecorded footage from this interview will qualify toward this market's resolution if it is aired within timeframe." Second market - "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?" We have rules - "The resolution source will be video of the events. Only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution." And we have clarification - “only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market’s resolution.” Markets have the SAME rules, but a different clarification. It's a serious violation of market integrity. It's impossible to traded fair when no can predict how rules of market is has to be meant. The clarification on the market "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?" was issued WRONGLY, without due diligence. We got totally ghosted by the Polymarket team. Draw attention to this matter. We expect Polymarket to refund the YES-holders of the market "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?".

Proof that all Polymarket badge holders are malicious actors and not a single one of them is telling the truth

EXCLUSIVE: A top Polymarket executive sent hundreds of thousands of dollars — and likely more — to social media influencers from left to right. One influencer says Polymarket wrote posts for them to share on X and asked them to promote specific bets. politico.com/news/2026/06/05…

There is a correlation between loud voices in discord and the direction of clarifications. The employees are people, read the chats, and are influence-able to at least a small degree. If I was in there arguing yes on discord prior to the clarification, might they have gone yes? Maybe! Not because I'm a super user or am able to change the clarifier's mind, but because I'm tenacious and LOUD and logical. And maybe a loud and logical person would've rallied others to argue for Yes and the chorus for the "truth" would've been a lot more consistent and the price higher and a higher price causes more pause about overturning reality. I mean...who knows? It's hypothetical. I do know the end result: regulars fleeced noobs. And the noobs did everything right and nothing wrong. The first question I asked was who were the biggest winners. Because the result is foul smelling. It's frankly disgusting to invent a rule ex-post facto. Fortunes were won and lost here, unjustly.

Good morning. Predictably, UMA was forced to ratify Polymarket's arbitrary rule change and deny reality. I posted about this last night. The resolution was inevitable. Nothing changed. The rules weren't ambiguous, Polymarket just broke them. We will hold them to account.

After today and watching events past few days, I've lost absolutely all trust in @Polymarket. Will be moving my weather bot and money out of the platform and my trading as well. "Microstrategy sells any bitcoin by May 31st" has just resolved to "NO". What I saw today is amongst a handful of the most blatant alleged frauds I've seen from a platform this big to its users in this space. Would be genuinely surprised if somehow this doesn't end up with much worse consequences for them. As things are standing, I have no option but to conclude this is the start of their downfall and that another platform will take it's place. I'll /c this later. Put simply but accurately: they changed the contract (buying shares with a set of conditions/rules) AFTER the agreement (purchase) and AFTER the date chosen had already passed (changed on june 1st, date was may 31st). Imagine buying a lottery ticket, winning, and when you go to claim they tell you they've decided to change the numbers. Disgusting and shameless are soft words for this. Some, as myself, would also say illegal, but that's still to be proven in front of a judge. It simply makes 0 sense to attempt any type of predictions in Polymarket, as the results of these prediction markets are not grounded in real events nor reliable sources, no matter how much they SAY they are (@arkham had recorded the sale on may 27th I believe), but on what the UMA holders find the most convenient at the time. Just reading that paragraph makes me even more disgusted. I can attempt to predict real life events, but I can't predict on what side of the bed the biggest UMA whale wakes up today. Might as well change every question to "Will UMA holders resolve/decide to...." After almost a decade of legal training, it's simply impossible for me to think this doesn't end in 1 or more lawsuits, and/or a class action. There's simply too much evidence and too much money lost. Of course it's not the first time something similar happens, but it is hands down the biggest and worst one. Many lost it all. A platform with a system that can't reflect the truth of events is unfit to be a prediction market. If a blockchain like Solana wasn't capable of reflecting the truth of its transactions, it wouldn't exist. Polymarket, in its current state, CAN NOT provide the service they claim they can provide. The fact $UMA holders (-98% in price btw) coincide with truth is just a matter of intersection of incentives. When they're misaligned (as it happened today), the truth changes, and real life events don't matter anymore. This is true I believe for any and all prediction markets in polymarket. What was the most alarming was the changing of the rule on june 1st. Changed from "occurred" (sale) to "announced". Becuase it leads me to believe there's a high chance it's not only UMA whales in this fiasco, but polymarket changing the frame (mid bet!!!) to cater them as well. I'm not leaving my money in the hands of a handful of UMA whales 1 minute more. I really wish it wasn't this way. I didn't really lose anything, unlike others. I'm just mostly disappointed, and I must embarrasingly admit a little heartbroken. Seems like just another rigged game. It would seem as if reality didn't matter in polymarket, only how much a handful of big players stand to gain.

For everyone insisting that @Polymarket simply has no choice and MUST stop accepting evidence the very second a market deadline passes, here's a precedent. At the time the market "Khamenei out of power by February 28" closed, there was no reliable confirmation that Khamenei had died. Instead of rigidly enforcing some supposed hard deadline for evidence, Polymarket allowed additional time for credible confirmation to emerge before resolving the market. So it turns out these unwritten Polymarket rules aren't nearly as strict or automatic as we're being told. Apparently, they can be applied when convenient and ignored when convenient. Funny how that works. The real issue isn't whether exceptions can be made. Clearly they can. The issue is that exceptions seem to appear selectively, depending on the circumstances and who benefits from the outcome. Who could have possibly seen that coming? @0xDinoCrypto @willo2_Poly

Think you got screwed by the recent Polymarket resolution? 117 Partners is interested in purchasing claims from affected users. I'm Thomas Braziel. I've spent nearly 20 years investing in distressed assets and have been active in crypto distress since Mt. Gox. If you have a substantial claim and would rather receive cash today than spend years pursuing a recovery, reach out. For qualifying claims, we may pay up to 20-25% of documented losses/cost basis and take on the recovery risk ourselves. DMs open.

I'm familiar. I don't get it. If you end evidence collection at the deadline, you GUARANTEE false resolutions every so often. Why would a prediction market want a system that spits out predictable bullshit? In fact, what the hell are you two even talking about? Because the trend of Poly is AGAINST ending evidence collection at deadline 😂 The trend is extending evidence collection to get the correct answer. Ending evidence at the deadline is an artifact of a much dumber and much worse time.

Good article, but refunding is impossible at this point unless it got very complex and specific. To be honest, the best solution is to essentially break the old system right now and expire it Yes, but Polymarket is extremely unlikely to do that. That would take balls and an ability to acknowledge that their system is now broken (they have never acknowledged this in a significant way, only paid lip service to "improvements" which never come). I think you're also glossing over the fact that Kalshi has had very similar screw ups in the past, and appears to be none the wiser...in fact, the opposite. But you're essentially right on abandoning the old system, and there will be a first mover advantage to the market that fixes the oracle and implements a rulebook (a rulebook that is oriented around truth and common sense as the first principles, not byzantine fine print nonsense that is currently en vogue on both sites). Institutional money is never going to enter event markets if these sites can't make their oracles predictable and hedgeable. Imagine if Goldman Sachs owned 10 million shares of Yes May 31st as a hedge against some other investment. You think they would tolerate losing to some discord insider nonsense where an entirely new rule is invented by someone who is probably paid less than their secretaries? It beggars belief.

We are launching a 10,000 USDT Support Fund for users affected by the recent Polymarket MicroStrategy settlement case. 𝕏 Space happening today — June 3 at 14:00 UTC: x.com/i/spaces/1dKrPPnvBEpJX… Details in thread. 🧵 #Polymarket #MicroStrategy

Polymarket has still given no real response. So I’m asking for help now. If you are a journalist, KOL, lawyer, crypto researcher, former Polymarket user, or anyone who can help push this further, please contact: polymarketfraud@outlook.com We need media coverage. We need legal review. We need affected users to speak up. We need people who understand markets, law, and public pressure. This cannot stay as one trader shouting into the void. If written rules can be ignored after money is in, every trader is exposed. We have to take this further. #StopPolyScam Rule before trade.

If UMA fails users, this does not end. Next steps: Formal notice. FTC record. Media outreach. Evidence preservation. Affected trader registry. Legal review. Collective action intake. A bad oracle outcome does not erase the written rule. #StopPolyScam

RT @0xDinoCrypto: Today I’m officially launching #StopPolyScam. This is for every trader who trusted the written rules and got ignored. T…

Guys, thank you for all the support. It's been a long day, I was hoping that people would understand my perspective but I didn't expect the level of solidarity that I would find from CT. I'm going to keep fighting for all YES holders. We will win against Polymarket. 🐦

This is an open message to Polymarket, its CEO, and its institutional backers. @shayne_coplan @Polymarket @ICE_Markets @NYSE Polymarket already has enough regulatory history. Do not create another one. The CFTC previously ordered Polymarket to pay $1.4M and cease violating CFTC rules. Reuters later reported an FBI raid on Shayne Coplan’s home in connection with a DOJ investigation. Now traders are asking a simple question: where did the written rule say MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin sale had to be publicly disclosed by May 31? It did not. I bought 49,695.76 YES shares because the written rule said YES if MicroStrategy sold any Bitcoin by May 31. It did not say “publicly disclosed by May 31.” If an unwritten disclosure requirement can be added after the outcome, then no prediction market is safe. This is no longer just about one trader or one market. It is about market integrity, consumer protection, and whether institutional investors should tolerate post-outcome rule reinterpretation. I am preserving all evidence for journalists, lawyers, regulators, and affected traders. If Polymarket chooses to ignore the written rule, I am prepared to commit every resource I lawfully can to pursue this matter for as long as necessary. This will not disappear quietly. I am prepared for a long legal, regulatory, and public accountability process if that is what it takes to defend the rights of affected traders. Do the right thing. Resolve by the written rule. Rule before trade.

In poker terms, this is my hero call. I saw the table, read the line, and trusted the facts over the crowd. The rule said “sells”. The filing later showed the sale happened before the deadline. That is the hand I called on. I am continuing the legal process and protecting my own interests. Real money was placed under Polymarket’s own wording, and I have the right to fight for a fair resolution. The cards are on the table now. I made the call, and I am playing it to the end.

I do agree it was a scam. Although I think it's wrong to blame it solely on Polymarket (even tho they're def also to blame). UMA/UMA Rocks/hidden precedents/clarifications on vibes....It's a totally, totally broken system where scams are now a regular occurrence. It is comically broken at this point. And it's not funny at all when you're the victim. The point of a prediction market is predicting what will happen. Anyone who predicted Yes was correct. Expiring it to No, which is a total lie, is a joke. It overturns the whole point of betting on the future.

Let’s cut through the noise. If you ask today, “Did MSTR sell Bitcoin before May 31?” the honest answer is yes. Nobody serious would say no. That is what the market asked. It did not ask whether MSTR disclosed the sale before May 31. It asked whether MSTR sold any Bitcoin before May 31. People who traded this market knew how MSTR reporting works. Everyone watching STRC, MSTR, and SEC filings knew the 8-K would likely come on the next business day. That means any sale between May 26 and May 31 could only be confirmed after May 31. This was obvious to serious traders. So if Polymarket’s position is “anything confirmed after May 31 does not count,” then the market became impossible for YES after May 26. Unless Michael Saylor randomly shouted “we sold Bitcoin” before midnight, YES could never be proven under that logic. But the market did not close on May 31. Everyone waited for the filing. Then the filing came out and confirmed what YES buyers were betting on: MSTR sold Bitcoin before May 31. The NO argument does not come from the title. It does not come from the main rule. It does not come from the actual event. It only survives because Polymarket added an interpretation that turns “sold by May 31” into “disclosed by May 31.” I have spoken with legal advisors, including top-level counsel in Asia. If this resolves NO, I believe affected users have a serious path to challenge it, including collective legal action. The rule said sells. MSTR sold. That should be the end of it. @Polymarket