A Polymarket<\/a> bet on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would \u201cwear a suit before July\u201d is being disputed, despite several major news outlets describing him wearing a suit at his June 24 NATO appearance.<\/p>\n The outcome, which some thought was clear, is now being questioned by users who argue the outfit doesn\u2019t meet the definition.<\/p>\n The market, which closed on June 30, was set to resolve as \u201cYes\u201d if Zelenskyy was photographed or videotaped in a suit between May 22 and June 30. The footage also needed to be authentic and publicly released during that window, with resolution based on a \u201cconsensus of credible reporting,\u201d according to the market\u2019s description<\/a>.<\/p>\n At the NATO summit at The Hague, Zelenskyy wore a matching black blazer and pants, along with a collared shirt. Outlets like the BBC<\/a> and Reuters<\/a> referred to the look as a suit. The PolymarketIntel account on X also described it that way in an X post<\/a> on June 25.<\/p>\n Still, some bettors argue the outfit wasn\u2019t formal enough to count. As of press time, over $58 million in volume has been recorded, with millions backing a \u201cNo\u201d resolution.<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear who is behind the push to reject the suit claim, but some seem to be hoping for a repeat of what happened in May, when a similar outfit<\/a> worn by Zelenskyy for a meeting in Rome with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio was ruled not a suit<\/a> by UMA, the decentralized oracle protocol that handles dispute resolutions on Polymarket.<\/p>\n The Defiant reached out to Polymarket for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.<\/p>\n UMA users vote on outcomes by bonding crypto, and decisions can be challenged in several rounds. Thus far, the voting has already had two disputes overturning claims that Zelenskyy did wear a suit.<\/p>\n The final decision is expected by July 4 at 2:09 AM ET, though the result remains unclear. UMA, which has handled thousands of cases, is again facing scrutiny<\/a> over how it rules on outcomes that involve subjective interpretations.<\/p>\n![\"the-defiant\"](\"https:\/\/thedefiant.io\/_next\/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.thedefiant.io%2Fad_4nxccvg80qeip9nrvilmrjkansuvbtq-wpupczpkwtd8_wy6qxsargp47-524bb20f-35d6-4893-bd58-e9f20d3526ff.png&w=1200&q=100\"\/)
![\"the-defiant\"](\"https:\/\/thedefiant.io\/_next\/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.thedefiant.io%2Fad_4nxdxeqmzod4fbfapngnsix1uilus1lvcruhuo98vbvfkwive3xlkdvi_-c77ffb31-5095-4064-b9a8-82a3cd672820.png&w=640&q=100\"\/)