Developing an Oracle Philosophy

The Shift Away From UMA

Following several reputation-damaging events such as the Ukraine Minerals scandal, the Zelenskyy suit controversy, the Astros vs. Dodgers misresolution, and The Wizard Chronicles, Polymarket began distancing itself from UMA as an oracle. UMA's influence in deciding disputes diminished, and Polymarket started issuing more clarifications than ever. However, as of August 2025, Polymarket does not have a clear oracle philosophy that users can rely on.

UMA's oracle philosophy leaned heavily on precedent, the spirit of the market, treating price as a proxy for resolution sentiment, and avoiding early resolution without an explicit clause. Even critics who disliked UMA's opaque style acknowledged its precedent-driven approach. That said, UMA's precedents were largely hidden and known only to the UMA cabal. Even Polymarket was often uncertain about how UMA operated. Over time, UMA itself shifted from being seen as independent to being viewed as vulnerable to manipulation by cabal members, which further weakened its legitimacy.

Polymarket's move away from UMA was shaped by these criticisms. Many users felt that UMA was too opaque, inaccessible, and overly dependent on precedent that was not visible to most of the community. There was also a growing view that the average trader should not need to dig through years of judgments just to understand how a market might resolve. This dissatisfaction created momentum for Polymarket to take control of clarifications directly.

The Tradeoff

The tradeoff has not been straightforward. Under UMA, the central question was "what will UMA decide?" Now it has become "will Polymarket clarify at all?" Clarifications often feel uncertain, and when they go badly, users sometimes call for a return to UMA.

UMA, despite its flaws, had a wealth of precedent and a record of judgments, even if hidden from most users. Polymarket, by contrast, appears to be handling clarifications on a market-by-market basis, with no public archive to consult. In shifting power to itself, Polymarket has reduced consistency without providing a clear replacement.

The Clarification Team

As of August 2025, clarifications are handled by a very small team. Heiney and Bosaurum are the public-facing figures, though it is unclear if anyone else is involved. With Polymarket issuing over 50,000 markets in the past year, the workload is overwhelming for such a small group.

It is also unclear if Polymarket maintains a record of precedents. With tens of thousands of past markets, applying consistent standards across cases is difficult without a system for tracking outcomes. As a result, clarifications often appear improvised rather than grounded in principle.

The team also lacks the collective expertise of the broader community. While they try to provide clarifications as best they can, users often identify errors or ambiguities that could have been avoided with wider input. As a result, mistakes are more likely and more damaging.

Community Collaboration

One way to address these challenges would be to involve the community more directly in clarifications and policy. UMA's oracle, while criticized, did provide opportunities for precedent discussions. Polymarket, by contrast, has generally taken an internal approach to clarifications.

The Polymarket Discord includes #polymarket-ideas and #submit-a-polymarket for market creation, and a #rule-review channel for evaluating rules. Yet not every market is reviewed. Sjennings has argued that if the National Guard market had been discussed in #rule-review, someone might have flagged its issues early, especially since a similar National Guard deployment market ran two months earlier.

The Need for a Coherent Oracle Philosophy

Polymarket urgently needs to establish a consistent and transparent oracle philosophy. At a minimum, this would mean publishing a rulebook that defines guiding principles, setting policies on early resolution, and explaining how precedent should be applied. Rules should clarify how explicit market wording interacts with broader sentiment and how ambiguous cases are treated.

Internal measures should focus on consistency and record-keeping. A precedent database would help rulings remain trackable and enforceable, ensuring that similar cases are resolved in similar ways. This would also make it easier for the clarification team to reference past outcomes rather than approaching each market in isolation.

Public-facing measures should strengthen transparency and trust. Clarifications should include reasoning so users can see not only the outcome but the basis for it. Precedents should be accessible so that users are not left without the necessary information.

Finally, there needs to be an education bridge between the oracle and its users. While Polymarket has emphasized a democratic approach and community-developed precedents in theory, its clarification process often functions internally. By opening clarifications to dialogue, collaboration, and explanation, Polymarket could move toward a more inclusive oracle that combines consistency with accountability.

Closing

Polymarket has taken on the ambitious goal of building a truth-seeking oracle, but it is difficult to achieve alone. The oracle is imperfect, ever-growing, and adapting with the times. By opening the process to dialogue and collaboration, the community can share in that responsibility and work toward an oracle that is more consistent, transparent, and accountable.

---

Suggested Reading: Polymarket Clarifications