Who is the Oracle Really For?
In the previous chapter we looked at the MOOV2 proposer whitelist and its effect on participation in the UMA Oracle. Since early 2025, Risk Labs and Polymarket have taken a similar approach in other areas. Rising disputes have been met with restrictions rather than expanded participation through education, leading many to view the Oracle as less open to ordinary users and more controlled by a small group.
Restricting Access Instead of Educating
On June 4, Lee published UMIP-188. The governance proposal aimed to increase proposal costs in order to discourage proposals and reduce disputes. However, it drew heavy criticism.
Many community members argued the measure was too extreme, adding that removing the Propose Resolution button from the Polymarket interface would have a similar effect without adding a cost.
Lee rejected this idea, saying it would harm the user experience. Others disagreed, seeing that hiding the button would make the interface cleaner and avoid confusion for Polymarket users.
Hidden Rules and Unfair Disputes
Lee also noted that before proposing, users see a prompt to review the resolution criteria. Proposers would be directed to the What is P4 blog post, which briefly explains P4 and advises reading the rules.
However, this does not explain why proposals go P4. It is often the case that proposers have read all the rules and followed them to the letter, yet are successfully disputed because of an unwritten precedent. One common example is the expectation to wait for data to finalize before submitting a proposal, a practice that has caused many disputes but is not mentioned in the blog post or in market rules.
The reason for precedent is that Polymarket usually aims to keep the written rules as simple as possible, while UMA already has a history of rulings that shape outcomes. Proposing was never intended for all users, but for those with some understanding of the Oracle process and its precedents. Without this knowledge, users often only learn after being disputed.
Additional Suggestions
Some community members, including aajjss, have repeatedly suggested more education and guidance for proposers. While there is broad support for better resources, few users support the whitelist or higher proposal costs in their current form.
Lack of Education by UMA Risk Labs
As of August 2025, demand for educational resources about the Oracle is at an all-time-high. UMA has published a FAQ, a P4 explainer, and articles on market clarifications, but these receive little promotion. X posts draw a few thousand views, and the materials are not regularly shared. They also lack the depth and detail needed to help users navigate the Oracle in its current precedent-heavy state.
As a result, many users still do not understand how the Oracle operates, and aside from PolymarketGuide, no comprehensive Oracle education resource exists.
Polymarket's Growing Role as Arbiter
Since June 2025, Polymarket has taken a more active role in shaping resolutions. In the past, it often left disputes to UMA and issued clarifications infrequently. Now clarifications are faster, more detailed, and sometimes issued before any proposal is submitted. By clarifying early, Polymarket can influence or decide outcomes before the Oracle process begins. While this can give certainty and reduce controversy, it can also undermine decentralization.
A Closed System and Lack of Engagement
Higher barriers and limited education mean there is no clear path for new users to become proposers. Outsiders have no defined route to join the Oracle process, which leaves participation concentrated in the same small group.
This problem is made worse by the lack of broader engagement. Most Polymarket users do not interact with the Oracle unless there is a dispute, and for many, the process feels irrelevant or opaque. Without consistent interest from the wider community, there is little pressure to keep participation open, even though Oracle decisions affect everyone on the platform.
A more participatory model could help. New users could start by joining discussions, helping verify proposals, and receiving guidance from experienced members before earning the ability to propose. Trusted figures could guide and mentor participants, reducing reliance on a whitelist dominated by bots. Without education and a clear path to involvement, the Oracle risks remaining closed indefinitely.
Summary
Risk Labs and Polymarket have responded to disputes by restricting who can propose rather than improving education. Measures like UMIP-188 and the proposer whitelist decrease access to the Oracle and threaten community participation. Instead of improving accessibility, restrictions are being used as the easiest way to prevent disputes. Without better resources and clear pathways for newcomers, the Oracle risks becoming a closed system for a small group. Following MOOV2 and the whitelist, the current path is one of restriction at the expense of openness and community engagement.
Coming Up
Having examined how Risk Labs and Polymarket have handled the Oracle in recent times, we now turn to how a compromise might be reached with a whitelist.
Last updated