UMA vote upholds ‘No’ on Polymarket Saylor bitcoin sale

UMA voters upheld a “No” outcome in the final review of a disputed Polymarket market, with roughly 98.6% of voting power backing the ruling. The market asked whether Michael Saylor’s Strategy sold any bitcoin by May 31. The firm disclosed a sale of 32 BTC, executed between May 26 and May 31, in an 8‑K filing dated June 1.

The market had resolved to “No” twice earlier; both results were challenged, triggering a UMA vote to settle the dispute. On June 1 Polymarket added a context note to the market page that read: “Confirmation achieved outside of the market's time frame does not qualify.” UMA voters applied the platform’s published resolution criteria in their final ruling.

Traders seeking a “Yes” outcome pointed to the 8‑K filing as evidence the sale occurred within the market’s timeframe. Traders backing “No” maintained that public confirmation did not occur before the market deadline and that the platform’s rules require confirmation to be available during the contract window.

The ruling prompted sharp reactions on social media. Users circulated the hashtag “PolyScam” and criticized the timing and clarity of Polymarket’s guidance. One user posting as willo2 wrote that UMA voters were bound to enforce the platform’s written rules, and said he lost about $500,000 after placing large “Yes” bets when he believed the market was still open on June 1. Another user, 0xDinosaur, reported buying 49,695.76 “Yes” shares for roughly 35,000 USDC and filed a legal “notice of dispute and demand for review” with the platform. The user posted that aggressive betting did not change the facts and that platforms should not apply unclear or unwritten rules after money is placed.

Industry participants commented on rule clarity and settlement standards. Galaxy Research wrote that markets should price events based on verifiable outcomes and suggested fixes including locking resolution criteria at listing and creating deterministic rules for verifiable events.

Polymarket resolves contested markets using UMA’s dispute mechanism; UMA voters base decisions on the contract terms and the platform’s stated resolution criteria. Polymarket has not changed the market’s final ruling following the UMA vote.