The Clarification Was Badly Timed
Tyler, _rice, and BeegYoshi slammed Polymarket for issuing a clarification at midnight. This was unusual since Polymarket rarely makes clarifications that late.
ANALista pointed to the disruption this caused, given the heavy price action at the time.
Missing Pre-Clarification
Ice questioned why there was no pre-clarification, which could have prevented many of the issues.
Polymarket generally issues pre-clarifications to show they are deliberating, increase transparency, and buy time before making a statement.
By signaling a possible clarification before the market deadline, they could have discouraged proposals and prevented disputes. They could also have announced that they would clarify the next day.
Without one, a proposer lost their bond and triggered a second dispute. Since only two proposals can run concurrently, both entered the voting cycle, delaying payouts for three days.
As a result, the order book was stuck at 99.9¢. Users had to wait three days to redeem their shares or sell them at a small discount. This also created a risk-free opportunity for whales to buy shares for a 0.01% return in exchange for waiting three days.
Clarification Inconsistencies
Several users called for a consistent clarification policy, criticizing Polymarket's unpredictability.
MonkeyOnMySoldier and Sjennings rebuked Polymarket for clarifying arbitrarily.
Others stressed that pre-clarifications give users room to debate while Polymarket monitors, which is important since clarifications are unilateral and cannot be appealed.
Summary
Polymarket failed to issue a pre-clarification, the simplest way to increase transparency and trust. Many users did not expect further intervention, so the second clarification blindsided them. They argued that Polymarket should avoid surprises and adopt predictable practices.
Coming Up
Next we look at how users criticized the clarification as making no sense.
Last updated