bibilabu retweeted
polymarket.com/event/us-x-ir… so bombs are dropping but the MOU was a permanent deal? @Polymarket @shayne_coplan
bibilabu retweeted
The United States has now declared the ceasefire effectively over, and the US and Iran are exchanging strikes again. Iranian civilians are once again paying the price. (Reuters)
Yet Polymarket resolved a market asking whether the two countries had reached a “permanent peace deal” to YES—based on an interim arrangement that was supposed to lead to further negotiations. (TNW | The heart of tech)
The fighting has resumed.
So where exactly is the “permanent” peace?
People’s suffering is not a word game, and market rules should not become one either.
bibilabu retweeted
Senators demand answers following WSJ’s scoop that Polymarket is now under federal investigation @ben_harnwell
bibilabu retweeted
Ghost fills are back !
exploiters found a new way to cancel their orders after they got filled.
They are printing over 6 figs/day across a range of new wallets.
It's yet unknown how the exploit work but the signs are there :
- total absence of adverse fill
- impossible rewards/fills ratio
- multiple reports traders having their ordered cancelled post fills
- multiple new accounts printing $5k every day then being cycled through
Right now it's affecting mostly weather markets, because that's where adverse fills are most prominent, but the exploit is probably general
Ghost fills had been fixed by the deposit wallet update a few months ago, but it seems attackers found a new way
@mustafap0ly @williamlegate look this up
bibilabu retweeted
UMA DIGEST — 18 JUNE 2026
⚡ Disputes
US-Iran Peace Deal (June 15) — Highly contentious. The market resolved YES despite Trump explicitly stating "It's not final, it's a memorandum of understanding," with the MOU only signed electronically on June 17. NO holders are vocal but the dispute window has closed and UMA votes are finalized (99.98% YES). Some are emailing markets@polymarket.com as a last resort. No mechanism remains to overturn.
Trump Physically Signed Iran Deal — Initially disputed by famouspet, arguing Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, and Iran's FM all confirmed only an electronic signature. aenews countered with AFP and a US official confirmation; usernamethr33 posted a video of Trump physically signing at Versailles during G7. famouspet conceded ("gg"). Market resolving YES.
Iran Airspace Closure — Strong YES case: NOTAMs confirm complete closure of all western Iranian airports including Shiraz (OISS) and Isfahan (OIFM) — exactly the two airports named in market rules — due to non-weather causes (drone/missile launches toward Kurdistan). Market was proposed YES, then disputed (allegedly by a large NO holder to stall). ronin331 and ferragamore argue evidence is overwhelming and a clean rules strike. pi7486 is calling on admins to settle. Market is currently extended and sitting at ~66-92c, with no substantive NO argument presented.
Trump Daily Insult Market (June 16) — Debated which quote qualifies: "Nobody ever heard of him" (about Sen. Jack Reed) vs. "Os(jerk!)off" (about Sen. Ossoff). laurleo proposed based on the Reed quote; mak_disc and ronin331 lean toward it qualifying. Market has a $500 bond due to a reward glitch at creation, limiting dispute reward to $125.
Football Player Props (Shots on Target / Live Blog stats) — Ongoing meta-dispute about whether live blog data is valid for proposing. im.the.wizard argues live blogs are not official final stats and cites a new UMA rule that all markets settle on final results. banhmichuoi and whosay8888 push back, questioning whether the precedent was legitimately set (alleging it may have been a self-dispute to manufacture precedent). Significant personal conflict between im.the.wizard and abhiz69 throughout.
ETH $1800 (June 17) — Proposed YES. Market opened 12:35 AM ET, price hit at 12:50 AM, UMA timestamp 12:52 AM. Community consensus: counts, rules say any candle 12:00 AM–11:59 PM ET, no dispute expected.
Given that the Iran Airspace market has overwhelming evidence but sits in limbo while someone disputes it purely to stall, should UMA implement a "bad faith dispute" penalty to discourage frivolous challenges?
xitter.cf/ParetoPrincipl/status/…
Adding to that, "pre-recorded footage" qualifies in the other market, making me wonder what the standards are.
We have 2 markets. Same rules - different clarifications.
Traders get screwed over. Let's sink into it.
First market — "What will Trump say during Fox Business interview on April 15?".
We have rules - "The resolution source will be video of the events. Only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution."
And we have clarification - "Prerecorded footage from this interview will qualify toward this market's resolution if it is aired within timeframe."
Second market - "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?"
We have rules - "The resolution source will be video of the events. Only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution."
And we have clarification - “only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market’s resolution.”
Markets have the SAME rules, but a different clarification.
It's a serious violation of market integrity.
It's impossible to traded fair when no can predict how rules of market is has to be meant.
The clarification on the market "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?" was issued WRONGLY, without due diligence.
We got totally ghosted by the Polymarket team.
Draw attention to this matter.
We expect Polymarket to refund the YES-holders of the market "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?".
With all the "violation of integrity" evidence, the grouped activity, and the "clarification".
I would say it is not just UMA whales, but the Polymarket staff has a share in the matter.
It is obviously a POLYMARKET SCAM.
@ParetoPrincipl @willo2_Poly @0xDinoCrypto @Domahhhh @mustafap0ly @Autonomous_Chad @ceostroff @WSJ @BehindPoly @Kalshi @Polymarket @TRUTHONLYPOL @Teehbuddha
bibilabu retweeted
Polymarket is like giving your house key to a hundred strangers — hoping they won’t steal your stuff @ben_harnwell
bibilabu retweeted
We have 2 markets. Same rules - different clarifications.
Traders get screwed over. Let's sink into it.
First market — "What will Trump say during Fox Business interview on April 15?".
We have rules - "The resolution source will be video of the events. Only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution."
And we have clarification - "Prerecorded footage from this interview will qualify toward this market's resolution if it is aired within timeframe."
Second market - "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?"
We have rules - "The resolution source will be video of the events. Only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market's resolution."
And we have clarification - “only remarks which are broadcast or streamed live will count toward this market’s resolution.”
Markets have the SAME rules, but a different clarification.
It's a serious violation of market integrity.
It's impossible to traded fair when no can predict how rules of market is has to be meant.
The clarification on the market "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?" was issued WRONGLY, without due diligence.
We got totally ghosted by the Polymarket team.
Draw attention to this matter.
We expect Polymarket to refund the YES-holders of the market "What will Trump say during bilateral events with Xi Jinping?".
bibilabu retweeted
✅Hello again, America! We have been offline for a while. We were permanently suspended for spreading false information. Our extensive appeal was denied, but our account is now available again.
#CryptoScam #ClassAction #IranPeaceMarket
We would like to share what happened this week. Our lawsuit is already en route. Our team has contacted four law firms. We have compiled a massive, multi-layered file containing all the necessary evidence. We'll soon submit a pre-trial claim to Polymarket's legal department. We are leaning toward #Polymarket rejecting the pre-trial settlement. Therefore, we're preparing for a full-scale trial. This will be a high-profile case. Give us some more time. Stay tuned. We've collected a huge amount of supporting evidence. Thanks to all the holders of "NO" and our team. A tremendous amount of work has been accomplished.
bibilabu retweeted
After reading the WSJ investigation and then reading Polymarket's Terms of Service, the disconnect is pretty incredible.
According to Polymarket's TOS:
• They're "not an exchange"
• They don't control transactions
• They don't control market resolutions
• They don't control the protocol
• They don't control the blockchain
• They don't owe fiduciary duties
• Users can't rely on information on the site
• All disputes must be arbitrated in Panama under Panamanian law
• Users waive class actions and representative actions
• Polymarket's total liability is capped at $100
At the same time, the WSJ reports Polymarket was paying creators to promote the platform, using simulated trading interfaces, reviewing creator content before publication, directing marketing campaigns at U.S. users, and coordinating large-scale social media promotion.
According to the TOS, Polymarket doesn't operate the market, doesn't control transactions, doesn't control resolutions, doesn't control the protocol, and apparently isn't responsible for much of anything.
But when it comes to marketing, growth, influencer campaigns, platform policies, user restrictions, market integrity investigations, account limitations, and content review, they seem to be very involved.
The single most amazing clause might be the liability provision:
"THE COMPANY'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY UNDER THESE TERMS WILL NOT EXCEED $100." Imagine losing six or seven figures on a disputed market and being told your maximum recovery is $100 and your only option is individual arbitration in Panama.
The overall theme of the TOS seems to be:
We control enough to run the business, but not enough to be responsible for what happens on it.
That's a position I suspect some lawyers, regulators, journalists, and judges may eventually find worth examining.