Criticisms
Criticisms of the proposer whitelist generally fell into three categories: the Oracle becoming permissioned, the whitelist being too restrictive, and the whitelist being antithetical to decentralization.
A Permissioned Oracle
Several users voiced concerns about the shift from a permissionless Oracle to a permissioned one.
Puddinpop argued that restricting who can propose would result in longer settle times, especially for smaller markets. He pointed out that the issue lies not with proposals themselves but with proposal verification. He also noted that most of the whitelisted addresses are bots, which are the only ones capable of meeting the whitelist requirements.
Gena expressed frustration with the Oracle contract, calling it unfair and claiming it makes UMA lazier.
Lee from Risk Labs responded that the whitelisted addresses accounted for 96% of all Polymarket proposals over the last three months. However, considering how many proposals are automatically submitted by bots, this statistic did little to increase confidence in the whitelisted addresses.
Lee also clarified that Polymarket requested the proposer whitelist and can apply it as they see fit.
The Whitelist Is Too Restrictive
There were also arguments over whether the whitelist was too restrictive.
Some experienced Oracle proposers questioned why their addresses were not included on the whitelist.
Lee explained that the initial whitelist was based on proposals made in the last three months.
Car and Prince of Seleucid pushed back against favoring only recent proposers, arguing it excluded longtime contributors.
Additionally, the 95% accuracy threshold is impractical, since it would mean one wrong proposal out of 20. This would be unlikely unless the proposer had submitted hundreds of proposals or was highly specialized, such as a sports market bot. In that case, it makes little sense for them to be whitelisted for markets outside their expertise.
The rule also limits proposers to a very small pool of long-time participants, which is restrictive given how few people already propose. The one-proposal-out-of-20 threshold effectively bars any new users interested in joining the Oracle as a proposer.
Lack of Due Diligence on Whitelisted Addresses
Some users raised doubts about the vetting process, noting that several bad actors were on the initial list. This suggested there might be more effective ways to create and maintain a whitelist.
Against Decentralization
Prince of Seleucid argued that locking the Oracle would further undermine confidence in its decentralization.
Lee countered by highlighting issues with a permissionless Oracle, especially as Polymarket scales. He noted that a whitelist of 40 proposers is large compared to other Web3 Oracles, but did not address how many are from Risk Labs and Polymarket, which raised further concerns about centralization.
Critics also argued that disputes are not caused by permissionless proposals but by insufficient rules. By restricting proposals to those familiar with complex Oracle precedents, Polymarket may be avoiding the harder work of making clearer rules.
Prince of Seleucid and MonkeyOnMySoldier suggested creating a clear path to proposing, such as participating in Discord discussions, verifying proposals, and being selected by UMA voters.
Decreasing Disputes
Perhaps the simplest way to immediately decrease the number of disputes would be to remove the Propose Resolution button from markets.
If the button remains while a whitelist is enforced, it becomes effectively meaningless. Prospective proposers clicking the button would simply see a message saying they are not whitelisted. Many proposals are already automatically submitted by whitelisted bots, which do not use the Polymarket Propose Resolution button but instead submit directly to the UMA Oracle.
Removing the button without restricting proposers would likely have a similar effect to removing it while enforcing a whitelist. This is because many Polymarket users' first experience with the Oracle is through the Propose Resolution button at the bottom of the Market Rules.
By adopting this change, the proposal mechanism would remain decentralized while acting as a natural filter for those who have knowledge of the Oracle. Additionally, previously disputed users would likely approach future proposals with caution or choose to stop proposing altogether.
Summary
Critics of the MOOV2 proposer whitelist argued that it shifts the Oracle from permissionless to permissioned, excludes skilled proposers, and undermines its decentralized philosophy. They questioned the criteria and vetting process, noting that most whitelisted addresses are bots or Risk Labs and Polymarket team members. Many saw the whitelist as targeting disputes by limiting proposers instead of improving education, clarifying rules, or removing the Propose Resolution button. In their view, this approach centralizes control in a small council at the expense of decentralization.
Coming Up
With the stakes of the MOOV2 proposer whitelist covered, we now explore why it matters for the future of the Oracle.
Last updated