Polymarket, the leading onchain prediction market, is facing backlash after a specific bet on whether or not Ukrainian president Zelenskyy would wear a suit<\/a> before July was finally resolved, following a week of back and forth.<\/p>\n The market commanded a massive $242 million in total volume, with more than 57% of that volume taking place over the last six days, after the market should have been settled. The market originally was resolved as \u201cyes\u201d implying that Zelenskyy was wearing a suit, but after nine days with multiple disputes, the final outcome has been flipped to \u201cno\u201d.<\/p>\n The controversy stems from disagreement with the resolution of the market\u2019s decentralized oracle protocol, UMA. UMA settled the same market in May<\/a>, when Zelenskyy wore a similar outfit that was considered not to be a suit.<\/p>\n This time around, some users are outraged with the results, with one anonymous user who goes by the X handle of @Atlantislq, claiming<\/a> that \u201cThis is the biggest scam in Polymarket history\u201d and alleged that UMA whales were manipulating the outcome. <\/p>\n They went on to say \u201cDespite all the evidence, despite countless articles from reputable media outlets which were more than enough to reach \u201ccredible reporting consensus\u201d they still sided with the UMA whale manipulators and handed them all the money\u2026.They don\u2019t treat us like people. Just exit liquidity\u201d.<\/p>\n The market originally resolved to \u201cyes\u201d on July 1, but was met with a dispute and claims of manipulation. Now, after UMA\u2019s intervention, the market resolved to \u201cno\u201d and was also met with claims of manipulation.<\/p>\n This is not the first time Polymarket has been caught in the crossfire, after a mineral deal market was prematurely and incorrectly settled<\/a> on the marketplace in March. At the time Polymarket said \u201cThis is not a part of the future we want to build\u2026We will build up systems, monitoring, and more to make sure this doesn’t repeat itself.\u201d <\/p>\n Outside of this specific example, some users argue that the decentralized oracle system is too easy for large token holders to manipulate in general, and call the nature of subjectivity vs objectivity in decentralized prediction markets.<\/p>\n As a decentralized marketplace and oracle, users are able to launch markets that have outcomes with nonspecific definitions, and while most of these command very little liquidity, and therefore very little money at stake, the Zelenskyy suit market has commanded tons of attention and liquidity with an outcome that is subjective. This combination of high stakes and an outcome that falls in a grey area is bound to leave the losing side of the market furious, and in this case the feelings are potentially amplified due to political affiliations.<\/p>\n One of the major points of controversy surrounding UMA governance is the token\u2019s market capitalization, which is just $95 million<\/a>, despite the Zelenskyy market commanding $242 million of volume.<\/p>\n The top ten UMA voters also hold roughly 6.5 million UMA, which is about 30% of the average UMA participation<\/a> per vote according to Dune Analytics. This brings up the concern of whale wallets colluding to manipulate outcomes, while cashing in on contrarian bets on Polymarket itself. There is no proof of such manipulation at this time.<\/p>\nPrediction Market Integrity<\/h2>\n
![\"the-defiant\"](\"https:\/\/thedefiant.io\/_next\/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.thedefiant.io%2Fad_4nxfqrqfvc5sfdwa_ox5xfusodq9nlqqwhwozg2xtdpsmehvntkwuy2uo-7074ad58-4356-420d-b6d9-0e5d6ec122c5.png&w=1920&q=100\"\/)