WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
issue with being too early in bull markets is pnl watching
if you start trading your pnl instead of making decisions based off price action & your fundamental thesis you always end up taking profits too early
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
curious to see how $ANSEM vs $SPX6900 plays out this bull market.
the black bull vs murad’s conviction.
who wins the grand battle? 🐂⚔️
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
A relay wrapper called fomo is making over 600k revenue in a day. App is vibe coded and all trades go through a 3rd party app called relay. The app pretty much created nothing new just increased trading fees and got KOLs into the seed rounds. This is what extraction looks like all the grifters are now getting paid to shill fomo.
A masterclass on how easy it is for KOLs to make money by just mass promoting vaporware and onboarding idiotic gamblers to use it.
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
POLYMARKET’S LEGAL RESPONSE
I sued Polymarket after they changed the rules on the “MSTR sells Bitcoin” market, scamming me for $500K.
They just filed a 24 page motion in court, attempting to dismiss my case. THIS is how they treat their users. 🧵
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
Our goal is clear: return $STRC to par.
I joined @kgreifeld and @RomaineBostick on Bloomberg today to discuss Strategy’s evolution into a Digital Capital platform, our $3B cash reserve, $STRC, balance sheet resilience, and our long-term commitment to Bitcoin.
01:17 - Strategy’s evolution from Bitcoin Treasury Company to full Digital Capital platform
01:25 - Over 840,000 BTC, $10.5B of $STRC, and Strategy’s responsibilities
01:45 - Why Strategy built a $3B cash reserve after listening to preferred shareholders
02:30 - The path for $STRC: build USD reserves, return $STRC to par, issue more $STRC, and buy $BTC
04:22 - $MSTR’s goal: outperform Bitcoin over time while managing volatility through bull and bear markets
05:41 - Balance sheet resilience and why debt risk is low
06:50 - Strategy’s long-term Bitcoin commitment: “We’re not going anywhere”
07:04 - Bitcoin is bigger than Strategy: 4% ownership, $30–40B of daily volume, and bitcoin sales that did not move the market
08:46 - Software, AI, Bitcoin, and the maturity of a 25-year public company operating inside digital finance
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
Do not fall for bullshit of finfluencers that memecoins are back. FUCK SHIT BITCH NOTHING IS BACK!!!
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
Polymarket scammed 1,868 traders, including me, for $6.5M on the Microstrategy market.
Fact: the average YES share was purchased at 58.6 cents.
Meaning? Almost ALL of the meaningful volume of the Microstrategy market was AFTER the 8K was filed.
The ENTIRE market was a scam.
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
I was scammed by @Polymarket
for $42,697.31 USDC with shares over 800K for the question - Will MicroStrategy sells any Bitcoin by May 31? I bet on "Yes". The description that the question included originally below:
"This market will resolve to "Yes" if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
The primary resolution source for this market will be information from MSTR and on-chain data, however a consensus of credible reporting will also be used".
MicroStrategy did indeed sell Bitcoin between May 26 to May 31 based on on-chain data and Sec 8-K filing (came out on June 1 at 8 A.M. E.T)
On June 1 at 1 P.M. E.T, @Polymarket made a new rule that included the following:
"No information from MSTR, on-chain data, or consensus of credible reporting confirmed that MicroStrategy sold Bitcoin within the market's timeframe.
Confirmation achieved outside of the market's time frame does not qualify".
The new rule completely resulted in "No" answer and changed the original interpretation that I had used. This changed the interpretation from event-based question to announcement-based question.
UMA oracle voters (Whales with conflict of interest) decided with "No" answer based on the new rule added by @Polymarket on June 1 at 1 P.M. ET.
This is completely unfair practice by @Polymarket. This has resulted in many other traders' losses as well.
I hope @Polymarket
do the right thing and provide a full resolution for "Yes" traders or atleast a refund for this market.
@shayne_coplan
@MatthewModabber
@nealkumar
@ariborod
@NYSE
@peterthiel
@foundersfund
@1789Capital
@VitalikButerin
@generalcatalyst
@DonaldJTrumpJr
Will the investors in @Polymarket allow this type of activity in a company they invest in or have the company do the right thing for their users?
@elonmusk, would you still be a partner with @Polymarket as they are committing corruption/fraud with their users?
@FoxNews
@CNN
@WSJ
@business
@nytimes
@FinancialTimes
Can any of these networks cover this story for awareness what's happening on @Polymarket
Thank you very much.
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
this honestly pisses me off so much, polymarket should be banned from X, too. @nikitabier @elonmusk
both the 'creators' and the company are knowingly attempting to evade the rules and making the app/site/network worse for a quick buck.
they got caught.
NEW: @Polymarket is spending big money to quietly pay some of the biggest stars on this platform, like @nickshirleyy, @Riley_Gaines_, @dom_lucre, @alx and its coming out of an exec's personal PayPal account.
POLITICO obtained payment records that show @MatthewModabber sent out over $2.5 million to over 800 people in 14 months, and we verified the identities of about two dozen content creators who received money. Most never disclosed the payments. W/ @mayakauf, @Jtblaeser and @declanharty
WRAPH 🐂🀄️ retweeted
After today and watching events past few days, I've lost absolutely all trust in @Polymarket.
Will be moving my weather bot and money out of the platform and my trading as well.
"Microstrategy sells any bitcoin by May 31st" has just resolved to "NO".
What I saw today is amongst a handful of the most blatant alleged frauds I've seen from a platform this big to its users in this space.
Would be genuinely surprised if somehow this doesn't end up with much worse consequences for them.
As things are standing, I have no option but to conclude this is the start of their downfall and that another platform will take it's place. I'll /c this later.
Put simply but accurately: they changed the contract (buying shares with a set of conditions/rules) AFTER the agreement (purchase) and AFTER the date chosen had already passed (changed on june 1st, date was may 31st).
Imagine buying a lottery ticket, winning, and when you go to claim they tell you they've decided to change the numbers.
Disgusting and shameless are soft words for this.
Some, as myself, would also say illegal, but that's still to be proven in front of a judge.
It simply makes 0 sense to attempt any type of predictions in Polymarket, as the results of these prediction markets are not grounded in real events nor reliable sources, no matter how much they SAY they are (@arkham had recorded the sale on may 27th I believe), but on what the UMA holders find the most convenient at the time.
Just reading that paragraph makes me even more disgusted.
I can attempt to predict real life events, but I can't predict on what side of the bed the biggest UMA whale wakes up today.
Might as well change every question to "Will UMA holders resolve/decide to...."
After almost a decade of legal training, it's simply impossible for me to think this doesn't end in 1 or more lawsuits, and/or a class action.
There's simply too much evidence and too much money lost.
Of course it's not the first time something similar happens, but it is hands down the biggest and worst one.
Many lost it all.
A platform with a system that can't reflect the truth of events is unfit to be a prediction market.
If a blockchain like Solana wasn't capable of reflecting the truth of its transactions, it wouldn't exist.
Polymarket, in its current state, CAN NOT provide the service they claim they can provide.
The fact $UMA holders (-98% in price btw) coincide with truth is just a matter of intersection of incentives. When they're misaligned (as it happened today), the truth changes, and real life events don't matter anymore.
This is true I believe for any and all prediction markets in polymarket.
What was the most alarming was the changing of the rule on june 1st. Changed from "occurred" (sale) to "announced".
Becuase it leads me to believe there's a high chance it's not only UMA whales in this fiasco, but polymarket changing the frame (mid bet!!!) to cater them as well.
I'm not leaving my money in the hands of a handful of UMA whales 1 minute more. I really wish it wasn't this way.
I didn't really lose anything, unlike others.
I'm just mostly disappointed, and I must embarrasingly admit a little heartbroken.
Seems like just another rigged game.
It would seem as if reality didn't matter in polymarket, only how much a handful of big players stand to gain.
Just took a potential 250x bet on @Polymarket (as did @0xSweep earlier as well).
It is undeniable that Microstrategy sold 32 bitcoin before May 31st, 11:59 pm ET, as their own filing from June 1st shows.
Got 5,123 "YES" shares for $20, for may 31st.
The market's rule was simple:
"This market will resolve to "YES" if MicroStrategy sells any of its Bitcoin by 11:59 PM ET on the date specified in the title. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "NO"."
Not when they announce it, when the sell it.
Market still resolved to "NO". It was disputed once, instantly resolved to "NO" again. Hours later, disputed again, where we are now (in dispute)
16 hours till the 2nd dispute settles, which means anyone could still make this very decent risk/return bet, nfa.
The only reason why this would resolve to "NO" is bad faith, a fundamentally broken resolution system that would expose them as unable to guarantee the correct functioning of their platform, or straight up corruption, which wouldn't be the craziest.
Oh, and the cherry on top:
xitter.cf/PolymarketMoney/status… they literally admitted to it themselves in one of their accounts 😭
Even with all this evidence, it's a very long shot
Holding 5,123 shares as of now 👀
Worst case, I lose $20. Best case, I make 5k. Might buy a litte more tomorrow when I wake.
I believe it would be cheaper, for various reasons, for polymarket to resolve properly & fairly to the corresponing "YES".
We'll see in a few hours

































