Arguments in Bad Faith

Several arguments were made in bad faith. As the dispute intensified, user behavior itself became a point of controversy. The Berlin proposal marked a turning point, shifting the conversation from exploratory discussion to strategic argumentation, with traders selectively citing sources and reframing definitions to support their positions.

Car (1)

One user, operating under the alias Car, became widely identified as acting in bad faith during this phase. As a long-standing participant in UMA and Polymarket disputes, he was well aware of how resolution logic functioned. Despite knowing the Berlin outfit would likely not qualify, he repeatedly posted misleading claims and visual framings to suggest it did.

One notable example involved his claim that he had contacted menswear writer Derek Guy for a professional opinion on the outfit. He posted a screenshot of a partial email that appeared to support a "Yes" interpretation.

Car defended the cropped image by stating that his full name had been included in the visible portion. Additionally, several users pointed out that Derek Guy was not considered a valid resolution source.

The full email later surfaced, showing that Car had deliberately cropped out a key portion where Guy stated the outfit may not qualify.

Car (2)

Furthermore, _lenroc accused Car and his "minions" of submitting fake evidence, including a falsified translation of an article. It was not the first time Car had come under heavy criticism.

For context, this was Car’s message in the Polymarket Discord server, later expanded into this public document outlining his claims. Car was also criticized for promoting a "Yes" resolution while selling his shares, before later switching to the "No Suit Yet" side.

The incident reinforced broader concerns about market manipulation, as long-standing users were seen making bad-faith arguments while strategically buying and dumping shares. This behavior misled newer participants, many of whom bought near the top and then echoed those same arguments in an effort to defend their positions.

There was active speculation about several users who offloaded large "Yes" positions during a brief price spike, likely triggered by manufactured optimism in the dispute thread. Around the same time, discussions began to surface alleging that the vote was being manipulated or "rigged."

Coming Up

With all the arguments presented, we’ll now take a closer look at a summary in the next chapter.