The Final Vote

Even though the June 30 NATO dispute overwhelmingly resolved to "No Suit Yet," with over 93% of the votes, one additional vote was held on July 6. This occurred because the July suit market was proposed on Monday, June 30, 2025 at 11:51:31 PM ET, just minutes before the midnight deadline. As a result, the market could only resolve to "Yes Suit" or "No Suit Yet," since the deadline had not yet passed and proposals are evaluated based on the time they are submitted. When a market is proposed before the deadline, it cannot resolve to "No," only to "No Suit Yet." Had the proposer waited just eight more minutes, the market would have resolved to "Yes Suit" or "No Suit" instead.

The final vote therefore took place between July 6 and 7. In this chapter, we will explore the developments that followed the June 30 dispute.

UMA.rocks switches sides to P3

On July 6, UMA.rocks, one of the largest voting delegators, announced that they are switching to P3 (Unknown / 50 - 50).

The announcement was met with disbelief by several UMA members, including BLONK and zurgadai.

Several long-time UMA community members mocked UMA.rocks' decision.

In response, the market price rose from around 1¢ to 4¢, driven by speculation that P3 might emerge as a compromise resolution.

The next day, UMA.rocks announced a switch to P1 (No Suit), citing concerns about the risk of having their stake slashed.

Additional Arguments Arise

Since the last dispute, several additional arguments surfaced.

Aajjss argued that many voters supported P1 primarily to preserve precedent, and did so without providing sufficient evidence. Aajjss pushed back against the accusation that all support for P2 or P3 was profit-driven, calling it an ad hominem attack that ignored the actual evidence relevant to the market’s resolution.

Zyzyzynn argued that The New York Times had previously referred to the same outfit as a "suit" and later as a "suit jacket," suggesting the terms were used interchangeably and that the outfit should be interpreted as a suit for resolution purposes. However, critics noted that these articles were written by different reporters and editors, and that by the same logic, earlier references by other media outlets calling it a "suit jacket" would undermine later claims that it was a suit, rather than support them.