# Accusations from the "Yes" Side The "Yes" side raised several accusations, falling into three main categories: Polymarket deception, slashing penalties discouraging honest voting, and Hart Lambur’s P3 comment tied to broader controversies involving Polymarket and UMA. We’ll examine each of these accusations in detail below. ### Polymarket Deception [Defipolice](https://x.com/defipolice_/status/1940789976712859975) accuses [PolymarketIntel](https://x.com/PolymarketIntel/status/1937779082818953534), a Polymarket affiliate account, of baiting and scamming new users.

For context, this [Dune dashboard](https://dune.com/martim13/market-better-view) shows a spike in volume following June 24.

On July 1, [PolymarketIntel](https://x.com/PolymarketIntel) changed their bio, a move that drew further criticism.

### Genuine Voting is Punished UMA’s voting mechanism penalizes incorrect votes that fall outside the final consensus by slashing 0.1% of the voter’s stake. As a result, participants are incentivized to vote not necessarily based on what they believe is correct, but on what they think the consensus will be. This dynamic can become problematic if voters believe that large token holders (whales) control the outcome. In such cases, participants may feel pressured to align with the perceived preferences of those whales, even if it goes against their own judgment. Below are some comments highlighting concerns about the slashing mechanism and its impact on honest voting.

Some people advocated for honest voting, regardless of the risk of being slashed.

Others supported following Polymarket clarifications.

### Hart Lambur's P3 Comment During the Berlin dispute, Hart Lambur explicitly stated that there was no precedent for P3. This message was later referenced during the NATO dispute as well.

However, Hart Lambur’s comment was heavily criticized, with some arguing that he shouldn’t influence the discussion or attempt to sway votes, but instead allow the community to decide independently.

On July 2, [Calvin Hamilton](https://x.com/rezy_io) mentioned that he had a call with Hart Lambur. He shared some key points from their conversation below:

### Polymarket Controversies Many people claimed that Polymarket’s loose rules align with UMA’s lack of transparency in decision-making.

[Matan](https://x.com/matan_si/status/1941509060781617386) also questions whether the vagueness of Polymarket’s rules and the reliance on UMA to make final decisions is a bug or a feature.

Some also pointed to [Polymarket’s history of problematic markets](https://web.archive.org/web/20250120144332/https://polymarketfraud.com/) as a broader pattern of concern.

Archived preview of PolymarketFraud.com, a now-removed website documenting alleged fraudulent markets.

Adversary published a [case study](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aZcwb-CTnvsSwAUBp9BLQVtPrdrFZrdYxeUQct2lq2U/) for investigating the potential corruption involving Polymarket and UMA.

In the case study, he examines why the Zelenskyy suit market should have resolved to "Yes," the impact of the Polymarket clarification, and the legal implications including fraud claims and consumer protection concerns.

#### Coming Up In this chapter, we covered several accusations raised by the "Yes" side. In the next chapter, we’ll examine the accusations brought forward by the "No" side.