Polymarket, a crypto-based betting platform, has recently been involved in two controversies surrounding its resolution system, raising questions about the reliability of decentralized dispute mechanisms.
One controversy centers on a $200 million bet on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would wear a suit before the end of June.
The wager’s outcome has sparked debate about market manipulation and the definition of a “suit.”
Zelensky’s ‘suit’ sparks dispute
The controversy began when a bet was placed on whether Zelensky would appear in a suit between May 22 and June 30.
On June 24, the president attended a NATO summit wearing what many media outlets described as a suit. Polymarket’s oracle, UMA, initially ruled that Zelensky’s outfit met the suit criteria. However, following challenges from token holders, the decision was reversed.
As a result, the market’s resolution has become contentious, with critics arguing over the precise definition of a suit.
Menswear experts weighed in, with one suggesting that the bet was poorly framed due to the lack of clear parameters for what constitutes a suit. He pointed out that while he would describe Zelensky’s attire as a suit for simplicity’s sake, the outfit didn’t align with traditional standards.
According to him:
“If I were writing an article about Zelenskyy’s dress, I would call it a suit because it’s the shortest, easiest way to describe his outfit without getting into the history of men’s tailoring. But I would also recognize this is not what most people recognize as a suit.”
This ambiguity has highlighted the weaknesses in Polymarket’s resolution system.
As of press time, “No” voters dominate the bet, with 98% support, leaving the “Yes” shares at a mere 2%. The market is set for a final review later today, but the debate continues over whether Zelensky’s June 24 appearance qualifies as a suit.
UMA faces criticism in other disputes
This controversy isn’t the first time Polymarket’s resolution system has come under scrutiny.
A separate incident on July 5 involved a $217,000 market centered on a Major League Baseball game between the Astros and the Dodgers.
The outrage was triggered after an 18–1 Astros win was mistakenly resolved in favor of the Dodgers.
The error, initially suspected of whale manipulation, was later attributed to a technical glitch and lack of dispute. Polymarket acknowledged the mistake and said affected bettors would receive automatic refunds within three business days.
A spokesperson said:
“All Astros holders will be made whole. No action is required on your part—refunds will appear in your account within 3 business days.”
Both controversies have reignited debate over the trustworthiness of decentralized oracles and the importance of precise market phrasing.
As the industry matures, these incidents may push platforms like Polymarket to adopt stricter definitions, improved review mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation.
Mentioned in this article
