If you've ever bet on Polymarket and assumed the oracle that resolvesyour market is anything close to decentralized, read this.Full breakdown video: [YOUR YOUTUBE LINK]A $17M market — "Will Trump say 'Iran' during events with Xi Jinping?" —is being resolved right now by 10 wallets holding 95.3% of voting power.That's 4.2% of voters carrying nearly all the weight. Round closes withinhours. Source: betmoar.fun [image in reply]The evidence the answer should be YES is not subtle:>White House Press Pool Note #5: Trump on the record saying "We did discuss Iran. We don't want them to have a nuclear weapon" at 11:55 AM Beijing on May 15>Fox News live YouTube stream — isLiveContent=true, broadcast window 10:57 AM to 12:22 PM Beijing — fully encloses the moment>TVB Hong Kong live, was_live confirmed, stream start 11:56:11 Beijing>Kalshi (CFTC-regulated) resolved the IDENTICAL contract YES, no dispute>The "Peng" outcome in the same Polymarket market group already resolved YES on functionally identical evidence 24h earlierSo how is the same evidence chain heading to NO on Polymarket?>UMA.rocks — a "voting committee" that publicly announces its vote (P1 / NO) in the dispute thread while including the disclaimer "we encourage voters to vote independently." Delegators earn 20.84% APR for voting with the committee, displayed in their own dashboard. This is coordinated voting with a fig leaf — opposite of anonymous token voting. [screenshots in reply]>Polymarket's "Additional Context" mechanism — they added a clarification AFTER the dispute opened, narrowing what counts as "live broadcast" to exclude pool-feed-with-delay (i.e. the entire Fox/TVB/AP chain). Users bet against the original rule. Polymarket resolves against a retroactive interpretation.>One UMA proposer address: 304 proposals, 100% win rate, 0 disputes lost. Either the resolution flow is mathematically unloseable or someone has structural edge ordinary users don't.
>>62257375indeed, it is a massive scam
>>62257375>Per market rules, "only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution." Footage that was not broadcast live, even if filmed during the relevant events and released during market timeframe, will not qualify toward resolution.>We’re aware of the dispute on this market. If a clarification is to be issued, it will be at 1:00 PM ET on May 15. If no statement is issued at that time, then there will be no clarification by the Polymarket team. The orderbook will be cleared at 1:00 PM ET, regardless of whether a clarification is made.Could it be that the rules were different and you did not read them?
>>62257394>>62257427>>62257375kill yourself baldie.
>>62257430Im not bald you retard. Not even a bit.
>Honduran presidential election — UMA dispute voter pushed P1 NOwith a fabricated turnout recalculation from raw papeletas data,contradicting La Prensa, El Heraldo, the EU observation committee,and Transparencia Electoral's final report all citing 60.19%turnout. Vote was edited to YES only after Polymarket intervenedto correct it. UMA.rocks weight made this very nearly succeed
Did you read the problem?
https://youtu.be/rWBb5dgUgJk
The UMA is weak my brothers.....
I don't get these whales if this is true. Do they intend on killing the platform for a quick profit?
gamble stupid things receive stupid results
There is metadata evidence matching official white house notes. You want fucking money? yes is cheap. Whales only have 20 million worth of UMA, maybe less. When this gets extended again because the official UMA admin ADMITTED they resolved p1 as a misclick, be sure that everyone who is hedging and buying yes at 0.3c is going to have more money to buy uma than those sweating because they have 1.8 million shares at 99.7c average. Already been going on for a week, whats another few weeks to flip 20$ into 5000$? Just need more people to join. We can make a smart contract that works the same as uma.rocks and defeat the uma cartel
>>62257375Yeah it's well known that polymarket is a scam. They've decided the opposite of reality in many cases already. The only realistic explanation is that they are profiting from it, otherwise they would have threw UMA in the trash years ago.
>>62257574no shit? take the money & run is always the best thing to do when given the opportunity
>>62257375why would you vote on what politicians are saying in a closed door meetingfucking retard
Namefags deserve the rope
>>62257375>[YOUR YOUTUBE LINK]kek
>>62257375Buy an ad.
>>62257375Bump just so others start to noticeHOW MANY TIMES YOU DUMB FUCKS HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT POOlymarket is a fucking SCAM?>2+2 is 4? = Y (off course)>Uh un chuds, UMA whales said is 5 because..reasons and Einstein and watermelon science man theories said is 5 so get rekt and thanks for playingUMA whales decide every outcome, it's not about facts but voting power and who has the biggest whales
>>62259240no way dude, putting up thousands of dollars on bets for questions with esoteric rules and subjective results is really smart
