willo2

being right doesn't pay you. i've called a trade exactly and still lost money. this week a whole market watched a company sell bitcoin and resolved "no" anyway. the market doesn't reward being right. it rewards being right in a way someone else agrees to settle. took me a lot of money to learn that difference.

$2,850 earned risk-free from the MSTR market. Honestly, I'm surprised by how many idiots were willing to burn their money after consensus had already been established. Some guy burned $100k just an hour before the market closed. Maybe he's just a wealthy fool, but the scale of it is still astonishing.

Remember that Polymarket has the right to change the rules for any market at any time, for any reason whatsoever. If a Polymarket employee doesn't like a bet, they can just change the rules to make it resolve YES or NO. They can even do this after the outcome has happened.

研究了 Polymarket 争议，发现这根本不是在预测「真实事件是否发生」，而是变成预测「事件是否会及时公告」。 简单事情经过：Polymarket 有个事件是「微策略是否会在 5/31 之前出售比特币｣，那公司在 6/1 发出 8-K 文档，说明已经在 5/26~5/31 卖出 32 颗比特币。 所以这题的答案，应该显示为 Yes，Microstrategy 是在 5/31 前出售了比特币。 但是到了 Polymarket 上变成了 No，因为他们认为，不可以使用到期时间后才出现的证据，否则很难定义时间界线，也会有严重的操纵风险。 在我看来就是毫无道理，完全诡辩。 1️⃣ 首先题目问的就是「有没有卖」而不是「在 5/31 前是否宣布」加上微策略公告在 5/26~5/31 这之间卖了，那就是卖了。这没有争论的地方。 2️⃣ 这事件的规则，Polymarket 原先列的是 「MSTR 官方信息 + on-chain data + 可信报导」那链上数据就可以成为判断标准。现在却弱化了链上数据，说「确认在期限后才出现所以不算」 3️⃣ 终局性还是真实性，我认为不应该为了容易结算事件资金，而忽略客观事实，等于牺牲正确性，这违背预测市场最基本的精神，预测真实世界的事件是否发生，我们不是在预测什幺时候发新闻稿。 4️⃣ 支持Polymarket 一方表示，这是他们常用的先例。但是这连法律上「类推适用」都过不了，规则文本就是没有这条。先例本就不能凌驾契约文本，你用先例去添加规则，我认为是不当类推，甚至更可恶算是法官造法了。 说一个更搞笑的是，部分支持者认为玩Polymarket 的用户，都应该进到 Discord 聊天，不然他们不知道这个先例，就是他们不够用功努力，活该亏钱。 不是本来就应该把规则放在网页上，供大家自行判断吗? 我就没听过哪个交易所说，玩合约还要来我们聊天室，我们这里还有更多规则，你不知道活该亏钱？ 5️⃣ 支持方认为套用未来的证据，这样太难结算事件了，会导致资金卡住。你不知道 Microstrategy 固定每周一发布 8-k 报告的习惯吗？ 就Polymarket 平台上等过多少几周的财报，各种数据才结算，这个等一天就不行了啊？ 6️⃣ 市场需要客观且可预测的标准，这是他们自己说的。那在5/31结束后，他们依然没有关闭事件，还可以买卖，他们说这是他们的失误，让人们误以为还可以进行下注，但其实事件是在等待结果。 最后还 PUA 你几句，这是个糟糕的系统吗？没错！但他们不是「故意」继续开放市场的。这不是他们事后添加规则，你只是不知道这些规则而已。是你对他们不够熟悉（又是用户的错） 你是一个平台新手啊，你不了解这些不成文的规定，被割一下很正常的？你阅读完网站所有规则，很认真以为自己找到 Alpha 其实你只是过度自信。 ( 真是非常厉害的情绪操纵 PUA 呢） 7️⃣ Polymarket 的争议解决最终由 $UMA 持有者投票决定。那既然不能预测真实事件是否发生，那是不是只能预测这些持有 UMA 代币的人会怎么投票解决争议？那这些东西还有啥意义？ 这就很像你是卖家，你把货物准时5/31 送到买家仓库，但买家 6/1 才去点收，他告诉大家他收到了。你会因此而被判定 6/1 才送货物吗？肯定不会嘛，道理很简单，真实事件发生了。 我的法律训练不管给我怎么推演，我都不觉得他这个类推是合乎法律逻辑的。 如果一个连真实事件真相都不重要的平台，那你还要去预测什么？在这样的预测市场，去做任何预测根本就是搞笑。 到目前为止 Polymarket 都还没有制定并公开明确的解决指南，他们只是任由这些事情发生，不断的有人损失钱。他们只是告诉你，有争议就 UMA 持有者解决，所以这一切都是操纵的游戏。 我支持这只鸟，上法院吧。

*MAMDANI: KNICKS POSTSEASON GENERATED $202M IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The Mental Gymnastics required to believe that Polymarket made the right call are ridiculous. Polymarket, fix this.

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.

Here's my honest opinion on the MSTR market resolution. It will close NO. This is because UMA is forced to respect the rules as written by Polymarket. Polymarket changed the rules, and now the outcome is literally in the rules. Even if UMA voters think that this outcome is ridiculous... they are forced to ratify it. They must abide by the rules that Polymarket wrote. So really... in 5 hours, we simply receive confirmation that UMA is forced to follow centralized Polymarket decisionmaking. Polymarket can change the rules, at any time, for any reason, and UMA are forced to respect it. No voting needed. So is UMA really that independent? Does UMA hold any power whatsoever? Not really. It's puppet decentralization so that Polymarket can shift dispute blame onto a separate entity. This market most likely closes NO in 5 hours. But that doesn't change anything. The scam already occurred. Clearly, the way that this gets solved will not be through Polymarket's internal processes. So let's take it to the next level. In my opinion, Polymarket made a massive mistake here by changing the rules so brazenly. They fucked up... BAD. If you're going to rely on a system that offloads dispute blame to another entity, you shouldn't take it upon yourself to cut that entity out of the resolution process. Now, the blame falls entirely on Polymarket's shoulders. This really isn't a difficult argument to make. Any rational individual who looks at this market can conclude that Polymarket themselves now have the responsibility of this market's resolution. Big mistake, and that's what makes this case very different from prior UMA voting disputes. You can't hide behind UMA now. Polymarket markets are resolved according to a set of pre-defined and stated rules. Polymarket themselves modified these market rules. The clarification materially changed the conditions for a Yes outcome after trading had already occurred. Polymarket's own documentation says clarifications "cannot change the fundamental intent of the question." Clearly, this one did. Polymarket, your time is running out.

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:

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: