Polymarket Clarification

After the market resolution was disputed, several users called on Polymarket to provide clarification.

Fourteen hours later, Polymarket pre-announced that a formal clarification might be issued at 7:00 pm.

At 7:00 pm, one hour before voting began, Polymarket issued an official clarification stating that information published after the market's deadline could still be used to determine resolution.

Community Response

The clarification sparked criticism from many users. Some argued that Polymarket should defer to UMA for decisions on controversial markets, rather than issuing its own clarifications.

Others raised concerns about the consistency of Polymarket's clarification process. While UMA's decision-making is at least partially transparent, users noted that little is known about how Polymarket's clarification team operates or who is even involved.

Polymarket employees were also viewed as questionable sources, with some doubting whether they fully considered the research and discussions regarding the dispute.

This fed into broader concerns about whether those responsible for issuing clarifications were equipped with the necessary knowledge and judgment to do so.

At the same time, some users criticized Car for selectively asking for Polymarket clarification when it benefited him, but not when it didn't.

Clarification Vagueness

Because Polymarket's clarification was precedent-based, it did not state how the market should resolve.

In response, Lonfus and Car floated the idea of selecting P3 (Unknown / 50-50), noting widespread disagreement over whether a qualifying strike had occurred. There was some evidence, but it remained unclear whether it satisfied the resolution criteria.

Tomorrow acknowledged there wasn't enough evidence for P2, but suggested submitting P4 first, then P2.

Lazy Cat argued that the market required proper confirmation and couldn't resolve to "Yes" without it. He also highlighted the outsized influence whales have on Polymarket outcomes.

Clarification Aftermath

Following the clarification, there was broad consensus that information which surfaced after the market deadline should be considered.

However, some users including Tomorrow, JessicaOnlyChild, and Dynosawr argued that information emerging after the proposal should not count. They said proposals should be evaluated based solely on the evidence available at the time they're submitted.

Summary

After the market resolution was disputed, users called on Polymarket to clarify. Polymarket responded with a statement allowing post-deadline information to be considered. This sparked debate over the credibility and consistency of its clarification process, with some users arguing it should defer to UMA, while others pushed for escalation to P3 due to disagreement over the evidence. Although many participants accepted the use of later information, others maintained that proposals should be judged strictly based on what was available at the time of submission.

Coming Up

In the next chapter, we look at how the voting unfolded and how the community responded.