willo2

I was just scammed for $500K by Polymarket. I am "willo2", the top holder of YES on "MicroStrategy sells Bitcoin by May 31st". Here's what happened:

@BlackMambaMilli Thank you man I do appreciate it. Hopefully they make this right

@willo2_Poly Bro that is insanely dirty tactics and not right, hope you get rebated at least But you should get the whole profit

I was just scammed for $500K by Polymarket. I am "willo2", the top holder of YES on "MicroStrategy sells Bitcoin by May 31st". Here's what happened:

@Brentsketit Thank you Mr Dumping Bandit. In this case it was not even UMA but a Polymarket employee who arbitrarily modified the ruleset prior to resolution. I think this is one of the most clear-cut cases of malpractice by their team as a single individual straight up changed the rules.

polymarket scammed me on the titanic sub market over 2 years ago jumped on a call w/ shayne and told him they had to move off UMA insane risk to use the platform since, surprised no one has taken legal action against them yet

@ParetoPrincipl Radio silence.

@willo2_Poly Any response from Polymarket team?

Good morning guys. If you keep a market open for trading, you should accept evidence that comes out within that timeframe. If my trades were valid, The legally issued proof from MSTR should be as well. Otherwise you're scamming users. Do the right thing Polymarket

@mhluo132 The bet was clearly not resolved if it was live and tradeable that's what open/closed means

@willo2_Poly The problem is that markets need to have a resolution date where they determine the outcome of the bet according to the rules. the rules rely on official sources, which shows MSTR did NOT sell bitcoin. Therefore, it resolves to no. Future announcements cannot revert resolved bets

Hey Polymarket actually according to you this did not happen

@0xbobaaa Thing is: You're completely wrong. (and that's why this rule is completely arbitrary) It has nothing to do with a public announcement. But who can tell when they don't write it down anywhere?

someone lost $527k on polymarket today trying to arb a resolved market strategy announced they sold BTC the YES market was still open at 80c looked like free money polymarket rule: bets placed after public announcement = void or loss. he didn't know. put in half a million someone else made $35k on the same market just knowing saylor never sells two trades. one market. different homework winner: @atlantislq/?r=bobaonee" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">polymarket.com/@atlantislq/?r… loser: @willo2/?r=bobaonee" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">polymarket.com/@willo2/?r=bob…

@munchPRMR @prathwik0 Exactly. That's exactly my point. If this was always the rule, then the market should have immediately resolved to NO the moment that May 31st ended. But it wasn't. Polymarket wilfully made the decision to keep it open, and users who traded on real information got scammed.

@prathwik0 @willo2_Poly So the market was always going to end in No because the 8K was scheduled to come out on June 1? Ggwp

The actual end date for this Polymarket scam was July 1st - per the API So Polymarket is just straight up scamming traders in order to keep their UMA whales happy?

@rb_tweets You are not making this situation any better for Polymarket. Apparently, I should have known that Polymarket was going to scam it, so I could have taken advantage of all the other suckers. Do you not see how people do not want to trade on a platform that treats users this way?

Feed's full of people supporting Willo2?? My brother in Christ, he aped 650k shares into an uncertain market and is now blaming Polymarket for the outcome. how about checking Discord where traders were discussing precedent, or spending two minutes reading the market comments?

@varrock Thank you man, this situation is absolutely insane. Insane loss of trust. It's clear to everyone that Polymarket is nothing more than a cheap bucketshop And the Polymarket affiliates clowning me about how I should have known they were going to scam it are even worse

You can't trust polymarket to resolve markets honestly. They changed the rules 2 days after a market was supposed to resolve to make sure the insiders made lots of money. It's impossible to trade these markets when there are strong incentives for resolution committees to lie.

@lstnpst The purpose of a system is what it does. If there is 1) no reason to believe the market has "closed" 2) No indication of closure 3) Live trading Result: users get scammed. What exactly is the difference between this and intentionally scamming your users?

To be fair, the "clarification" didn't change any rules. It commented on the existing ones. The contract clearly and originally noted that resolution was through the disclosure (or non-disclosure) of specific information. Disclosure deadline of May 31 is both explicit (they didn't hide the timeframe or requirements) and implied (bc otherwise you would need to unreasonably assume an open-ended undefined contract that could theoretically never resolve). As for allowing trading after May 31 (seemingly your main gripe)...maybe a poor administrative decision but it didn't actually impact any stated rules or change the substance of the contract. Regardless of when they settle, it all hinges on disclosure by the end of May 31. You were essentially betting on yesterday's weather. You got jammed up. Definitely a rough one.

@avi_eisen They should hire this Genius

Favorite No argument

@MartinShkreli Exactly. Theoretically, there is a "voting period" where UMA validators will weigh their thoughts against one another. Polymarket ARBITRARILY changed the rules so that this market HAS to resolve NO. No voting comes into it. Joke of a company.

this is why prediction markets are worthless truth is up to some arbiter, who also has a conflict of interest

@imtomcurry Thank you for the support brother. Absolutely agree.

If Polymarket can’t get this correct there is 0 reason to ever use them as a 4th grader could figure out the proper resolution here. Clarifications can’t add new rules. 15 billion dollar company btw

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. 🐦

@bryantheden Exactly, the receipts don't lie Strategy sold - it's as clear as day. Absolutely shameless behaviour from Polymarket

The "will strategy sell btc by may 31" polymarket market just resolved NO and strategy literally filed an 8-K with the SEC confirming they sold 32 BTC between May 26–31 i don't know how to make this more clear my answer: YES, they sold and i'll explain exactly why 32 BTC sold, avg price $77,135, total ~$2.5M in proceeds, purpose: fund preferred stock distributions this isn't speculation, this isn't on-chain noise this is Strategy's own SEC filing, Form 8-K, filed June 1, 2026 the receipts don't lie the market rules literally say: "This market will resolve to Yes if MicroStrategy sells ANY of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified" ANY 32 BTC sold before the deadline but polymarket resolved NO anyway here's what happened behind the scenes: on-chain data showed ~411 BTC move from Strategy wallets → Coinbase Prime Deposit, market odds jumped from 3% → 40% in hours, then the same BTC moved back out, polymarket saw the chaos and proposed "No" people disputed it twice then polymarket added an after-the-fact "clarification" saying on-chain moves don't count unless confirmed by official disclosure so the official disclosure came Strategy's 8-K to the SEC, black and white: "BTC Sold: 32 | Aggregate Sale Price: $2.5M | Average Sale Price: $77,135 | Period: May 26–31, 2026" that is the definition of selling BTC by May 31 polymarket's response? still NO one trader lost $500k on YES this is the playbook now add after the fact rule clarifications mid-dispute, ignore the primary resolution source (MSTR official disclosure + SEC filing), protect the majority position (NO was 99¢, YES was 0.7¢) if you can rewrite the rules whenever it's convenient, what's the point of rules at all polymarket's credibility just took a direct hit not from a gray-area market, not from a vague rule, but from a market where the answer is literally inside a government filing the 8-K exists to comply with SEC disclosure requirements the most regulated, audited, publicly verifiable document in finance and polymarket chose to ignore it this isn't about $500k it's about whether prediction markets can be trusted when the answer is inconvenient if YES resolves correctly → polymarket is a truth machine if NO holds → it's just another venue where house rules bend toward whoever has more liquidity on the other side we're about to find out which one it is

@Jeremybtc You Make A Great Point

Is this not free money???

@0xEnes_ Thank you for the support man This resolution was ridiculous

Polymarket, what are you doing with the MicroStrategy BTC sale market? The market closed on May 31 (Sunday) at 11:59 PM ET. MicroStrategy sold 32 BTC between May 26-31 (clear in the filing). SEC 8-K was published on June 1 (Monday) — everyone knows filings don’t happen on Sunday. Yet Polymarket added a clarification on June 1 (after the market closed): “Confirmation achieved outside of the market’s time frame does not qualify.” You changed the rules after trading ended and after the filing came out. @Polymarket

@TheFlowHorse Thank you Mr Flow Horse the support means a lot. Polymarket have to do right by my fellow YES holders, I won't let them get away with this

If this was me, I would lawyer up and be hanging out right outside Polymarket’s upper east side location.

@laxxbt Thank you man. It's absolutely insane that they can resolve markets based upon something not written in the rules A 5 year old could resolve this market

> read the news that Saylor sold 32 BTC between May 26 - May 31 > slam the orderbook for $500K on Polymarket that Strategy indeed sold bitcoin before May 31 > lose $500K because you should have known that confirmation achieved outside of the market's time frame does not qualify

@tridder46290 Exactly

@willo2_Poly The argument for no is that you have to ignore the rules of the market entirely and go based on another set of rules not stated

The rules were very explicit. So explicit in fact that I have trouble understanding how people are arguing NO The market was "Did Microstrategy Sell". Not Did Microstrategy Announce. They sold.