Polymarket Controversy Heats Up After the Zelenskyy Suit Market Resolves

2025-07-14 16:07:01 分类：Digital Currency 阅读(75)

Some users are Blockchain engineeringgoing as far as to call it “the biggest scam in Polymarket history”, while UMA goes on record to say there is “no evidence” of foulplay.

Polymarket, the leading onchain prediction market, is facing backlash after a specific bet on whether or not Ukrainian president Zelenskyy would wear a suit before July was finally resolved, following a week of back and forth.

The market commanded a massive $242 million in total volume, with more than 57% of that volume taking place over the last six days, after the market should have been settled. The market originally was resolved as “yes” implying that Zelenskyy was wearing a suit, but after nine days with multiple disputes, the final outcome has been flipped to “no”.

Zelenskyy Market Outcome – Polymarket

The controversy stems from disagreement with the resolution of the markets decentralized oracle protocol, UMA. UMA settled the same market in May, when Zelenskyy wore a similar outfit that was considered not to be a suit.

They went on to say “Despite all the evidence, despite countless articles from reputable media outlets which were more than enough to reach ”credible reporting consensus“ they still sided with the UMA whale manipulators and handed them all the money….They dont treat us like people. Just exit liquidity”.

The market originally resolved to “yes” on July 1, but was met with a dispute and claims of manipulation. Now, after UMAs intervention, the market resolved to “no” and was also met with claims of manipulation.

This is not the first time Polymarket has been caught in the crossfire, after a mineral deal market was prematurely and incorrectly settled on the marketplace in March. At the time Polymarket said “This is not a part of the future we want to build…We will build up systems, monitoring, and more to make sure this doesnt repeat itself.”

Prediction Market Integrity

Outside of this specific example, some users argue that the decentralized oracle system is too easy for large token holders to manipulate in general, and call the nature of subjectivity vs objectivity in decentralized prediction markets.

As a decentralized marketplace and oracle, users are able to launch markets that have outcomes with nonspecific definitions, and while most of these command very little liquidity, and therefore very little money at stake, the Zelenskyy suit market has commanded tons of attention and liquidity with an outcome that is subjective. This combination of high stakes and an outcome that falls in a grey area is bound to leave the losing side of the market furious, and in this case the feelings are potentially amplified due to political affiliations.

One of the major points of controversy surrounding UMA governance is the tokens market capitalization, which is just $95 million, despite the Zelenskyy market commanding $242 million of volume.

The top ten UMA voters also hold roughly 6.5 million UMA, which is about 30% of the average UMA participation per vote according to Dune Analytics. This brings up the concern of whale wallets colluding to manipulate outcomes, while cashing in on contrarian bets on Polymarket itself. There is no proof of such manipulation at this time.

Top Voters by Participation Quantity – Dune Analytics

Wired reported on the debate as well, with a menswear expert telling the publication, “It meets the technical definition [of a suit]… I would also recognize that most people would not think of that as a suit.” .

The co-founder of UMA, Hart Lumbur also told the publication that, “There is no evidence of manipulation of UMA. I really dont like those meritless accusations.”

Polymarket did not immediately respond to The Defiants request for comment.

Disclaimer：

The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.