پن کیا گیا ٹویٹ
willo2
261 posts
@community_fist @0xDinoCrypto Great point. I hadn't even considered that Polymarket is incentivised to cause these kinds of disputes to occur.
English
Wow, the MicroStrategy market has already surpassed the previous record holder - Suitgate!
Congrats to everyone celebrating 😅
@willo2_Poly, @0xDinoCrypto - we're with you. Keep pushing to the end.
To those who keep telling us "sure, Polymarket's rules, communication and resolution mechanisms could be better, but they're not scamming anyone because they have no incentive to do so" - here's direct evidence that Polymarket quite literally benefits from turning otherwise straightforward markets into massive controversies.
The longer the dispute, the more attention it gets. The more attention it gets, the more volume it attracts. And the more volume it attracts, the more fees are generated.
At some point, it's fair to ask whether these recurring controversies are merely accidental or whether the platform's incentives are not as aligned with users as some people would like to believe.
English
@willo2_Poly Gotta fight this so the insiders can't win again.
Rooting for you king.
English
Absolutely diabolical analysis that clings on to the technicality instead of ground truth.
The truth is:
1) the market was titled "MicroStrategy sells any Bitcoin by May 31?"
2) the rules didn't indicate disclosure time
3) and MSTR indeed sold in may
By Car's logic, "this is ok because there is precedent and Polymarket needs consistency to operate".
Yet, there is precedent where new evidence influenced the outcome of a market that passed its deadline.
And this is basically arguing that Polymarket's precedent and operations are more important than the truth.
The argument shouldn't be based on obscure technicalities but common sense.
The argument shouldn't be based on a platform's convenience but the truth.
Car@CarOnPolymarket
English
@elonmusk I got scammed for $500K by Polymarket insiders, and Grok agreed.
Trust Grok.
x.com/grok/status/20…
Grok@grok
The key weakness: "Additional context" (no confirmation outside timeframe qualifies) was added June 1 — after the May 31 period and after heavy trading at 70-80¢ Yes. Original rules: Resolves Yes if MSTR sells any BTC by 11:59 PM ET May 31. Primary sources = MSTR info + on-chain data. Strategy's own filing (covering exactly May 26-31) states 32 BTC sold. On-chain confirms movements. The sale occurred per the company's disclosure for that window. Precedent is relevant but secondary when the explicit timing restriction wasn't in the published rules at bet time. Late addition + no pre-May 31 clarification (despite requests) created the ambiguity. Resolving strictly on confirmation timing favors one reading after the fact. Literal reading supports Yes; platform risk from unclear rules is real.
English
Polymarket badge people have one argument.
Precedent trumps reality.
But Polymarket is not a court of law, and they should not be setting 'precedent'.
Because this is how Truth Markets turn into Technicalities Markets.
Bryant@bryantheden
No hate to the badge people, but defending this like it was obvious from day one feels unserious Strategy sold BTC before the deadline That part is not fake, not speculation, not “greedy trader cope.” The only debate is whether Polymarket should count evidence published after the deadline Fine, that’s a valid debate But then write that clearly in the rules Don’t make traders discover the real interpretation from precedent, Discord, or UMA drama after money is already on the line Bad wording should not become trader punishment If YES loses here, the problem is not only the trader The problem is the market design @Polymarket @UMAprotocol @shayne_coplan @mustafap0ly
English
@cryptojourneyrs Appreciate the support man
Polymarket should not treat precedent with priority over facts. They are not a court of law.
English
The Polymarket cope is absolutely delusional. PAY @willo2_Poly HIS MONEY.
Car@CarOnPolymarket
English
Let’s check a few facts about this market:
1. According to both the API results and what users saw in the mobile app, the end date was set to July 1 (x.com/munchPRMR/stat…)
2. The rules did not specify a concrete final source-data cutoff date.
3. In practice, determining a company’s sales activity through May 31 requires some reporting delay. Traders were generally waiting for Strategy’s 8-K filing to confirm whether any sales had occurred.
The fundamental issue is that the rules set by Polymarket were not sufficiently clear. To determine whether sales occurred by May 31, it is reasonable to rely on the company’s official disclosures. If that was not the intended approach, the rules should have explicitly defined a final cutoff date for acceptable data sources.
What makes this even more surprising is that similar controversies have occurred before (polymarket.com/ko/event/micro… ), yet the rules were still written in such an ambiguous manner.
It is even more unfortunate because the market’s open interest has now grown beyond $100 million, making it practically impossible to resolve the situation in a way that satisfies everyone, whether through a refund or some form of universal settlement.
willo2@willo2_Poly
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:
English
willo2 ری ٹویٹ کیا
Guy with a $300k open position, a Polymarket badge, and monthly Polymarket payments wants you to know that Polymarket did nothing wrong
Car@CarOnPolymarket
English
ive been trading prediction mkts for a while and after that microstrategy situation on polymarket i felt like i had to say something
ive seen tons of markets with strict deadlines in the rules, or ones that clearly say they will use new info after a certain number of days. ive also seen plenty get resolved using updated or changed information
the filing came out on a monday, so there was no way they could have had a proper answer by the 31st. thats why the actual contract was supposed to end on june 1st at 11:59pm et, not the 31st
its obvious this market cant resolve to yes. the people who bet big on no (polymarket larps) would lose heavy and it would mess up a lot of bond traders too. the most realistic outcomes are either resolving to no or everyone getting refunded
its crazy how polymarket is willing to throw away so much trust and reputation for nothing
Car@CarOnPolymarket
MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin, but Polymarket resolved NO. Here's why:
English
@amanwesley Thank you for the words brother. I appreciate the support and agree, this was a ridiculous precedent to set
English
A few questions about Polymarkets recent robbery for anyone who thinks the gamblers (it’s not trading) are at fault…
If MSTR’s May 31st buy “didn’t happen” in thier eyes
- why could you still bet “YES” on June 1st? If the market was resolved it should have been closed, simple.
- is it verifiable on chain that MSTR sold bitcoin? Yes
- did MSTR announce they sold by that date? Yes, they announced 3 days after
So far we’ve confirmed, 1 -the market was open on 6/1 and 2-we can see on chain they sold by 5/31 and 3- MSTR also told us they did a few days after and 4-Polymarket themselves confirmed this with a tweet on 6/1
Lastly, Did their original wording align with their NO resolution? No
Awful precedent they are allowed to set here that after a resolution happens they can just update the wording of the bet. I hate online gambling (especially prediction markets!) and think its ruining society, crypto and our culture but I still belive in fairness and contracts and hope to see @willow2_poly and others win this fight
willo2@willo2_Poly
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:
English
@willo2_Poly The most glaringly obvious issue is that if these were the rules all along, it should have been resolved at 12:00 June 1
English
@carlwheezor @Polymarket @Kalshi @pumpcade Absolutely. It's ridiculous to market themselves as a "truth market" while their employees are happy to deny reality
English
If @Polymarket resolves the MSTR sell BTC by end of May market that’s currently in dispute as no I’m moving to other venues without the UMA fuckery shoutout @Kalshi and @pumpcade. Not a whale, only pushed about 2.2m in volume thru the platform but still the facts are that MSTR sold before the end date and confirmed via SEC filing.
English
because ct has a memory of goldfish. the latest fiasco is not new. polymarket resolves markets wrong all the time.
israel invasion of lebanon 2024
venezuela election
zelensky suit market 2025
us invading venenzeula
and now this microstrategy btc sell market.
they call it spirit of the market. ambiguity is baked in.
in a binary contract it is up to the issuer to clarify all the rules. if the rules are ambiguous issuer of contract is liable.
anyone saying its uma's fault is gaslighting you. uma follows what polymarket says. uma is there for legal protection and scapegoating.
there is no objective truth. the truth is what polymarket says its the truth.
anyone defending polymarket is a paid shill, airdrop farmer or an investor.
they have been banned from 30+ countries. they are offshore entity based in panama. good luck fighting them there.
where you can hit them most is revenue. just stop using it.
but you will forget about this in a week.
Jeff Dorman@jdorman81
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. That's the equivalent of saying "a bet on the Bears to win the 1985 super bowl didn't resolve because the newspaper didn't publish the box score til Monday." No skin in the game, but whatever UMA/Polymarket are doing here is nuts.
English
You’re tracking the price of bitcoin
I’m tracking the legal arguments around Polymarket claiming the market was “No” on Saylor selling bitcoin by May 31 because MicroStrategy didn’t report by COB since it filed the 8K June 1
We are not the same
willo2@willo2_Poly
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:
English