Eternity

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?".

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.

@0xDinoCrypto Push hard bro!

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

Generate your own loss card here: polymarketfraud.xyz/card Show your amount. Share your story. Make it visible. #StopPolyScam

@0xDinoCrypto @Polymarket Bro, it's verified numbers? Why your number is 5 billion?

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

@willo2_Poly Read Term of Service on Polymarket - it's completely bullshit. Panama jurisdiction is dead end.

@ParetoPrincipl Radio silence.

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

@willo2_Poly Yeah, bro, we went through the same thing. It's not first time, and not last.

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. 🐦

@0xDinoCrypto @shayne_coplan @Polymarket @ICE_Markets @NYSE Let's go, bro!

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.

can a @Polymarket executive or associated individual explain what you’re going to do about this? platform trust heading lower if we’re still resolving markets like this, and now serious alternatives exist this is code red

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

Polymarket faces backlash over disputed Strategy bitcoin sale market theblock.co/post/403312/po…

@MarioBendigali @0xDinoCrypto we also have a group, and preparing a lawsuit. DM me. i think it's possible to act together

@0xDinoCrypto DM me. Theres a group getting together to argue Polymarket needs to pay both sides due to how poorly it defined it. Theres a lawyer involved as well

I am prepared to hold Polymarket legally accountable if this market ignores its written rules. I am offering a $10,000 bounty for the best lawyer/legal team to help challenge this resolution. Prediction markets cannot invent disclosure-timing rules after the fact.

@0xDinoCrypto Polymarket use Panama jurisdiction as facade. And have this in rules.

Official Statement Regarding the Polymarket MicroStrategy Market I have contacted multiple legal advisors, partners, and people familiar with crypto and prediction market disputes regarding the Polymarket market “MicroStrategy sells any Bitcoin by May 31, 2026?” I accept that I took risk. My position was aggressive, and maybe I was greedy. But risk-taking does not change the facts, and it does not allow a platform to apply an unclear or unwritten rule after real money has already been placed. The written rule said the market resolves YES if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by the date in the title. It did not clearly say the sale had to be publicly disclosed by May 31, filed in an 8-K by May 31, or confirmed before the deadline. A sale date and a disclosure date are not the same thing. If Polymarket intended this to be a disclosure-based market, the rule should have said so clearly. Ordinary users read “sells any Bitcoin by May 31” as an event-based condition, not a disclosure-timing condition. Any ambiguity was created by the market wording itself. I purchased 49,695.76 YES shares for approximately 35,000 USDC. This is real money, and this issue deserves serious review. I will continue improving my legal materials, collecting evidence, and contacting relevant legal support. I will pursue this matter to the end through every available lawful channel. I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for the written rules to be respected, the facts to be addressed directly, and this market to be reviewed fairly. Prediction markets only work when users can trust that words mean what they say. @Polymarket @PolymarketHelp