Accusations from the "No" Side
The "No" side raised several accusations as well, falling into three main categories: suspicious price action, misrepresentation of key information, and bad faith behavior.
We’ll examine each of these accusations in detail below.
Suspicious Price Action
The suit market’s price action raised early suspicion. It had traded under 5¢ just before the NATO summit. But after the NATO event, it began rising sharply, spiking to nearly 20¢ after a wave of headlines and social media attention. There was no clear change in UMA precedent or facts on the ground. To many, the scale of the rally seemed disproportionate, raising questions about whether the move reflected organic sentiment or something more coordinated.
Those questions soon turned into a broader theory. Speculation grew that the final “Yes” campaign was less a good-faith reading of events and more a tactical operation. HashDive confirmed that most of the "Yes" entry came below 3¢, with heavy accumulation between 1¢ and 2¢.
However, some "Yes" supporters alleged that this explosion in market activity could be attributed to PolymarketIntel's tweet.
Insect Killer
The most notable case was Insect-Killer, the market’s largest "Yes" holder. Onchain records show he began buying on June 24 and steadily increased his position. By the end, he had spent over $330,000 with a potential payout of $13.4 million if “Yes” resolved. The DCA-style activity, timed to the NATO summit, added to suspicions of premeditated strategy.
This is further supported by the fact that Insect-Killer was currently facing the largest loss in the market.
Further criticism arose when someone, possibly Insect-Killer, submitted a new proposal just eight minutes before the market deadline. A UMA governance thread was created in response, calling for penalties and framing the move as coordinated bad-faith behavior intended to extend the market and disrupt the dispute timeline. Additional accusations followed, including claims that participants pushed large UMA stakeholders (whales) not to reveal their votes, further deepening concerns about process manipulation.
On July 5, Insect-Killer sold all his "Yes" shares, taking a $262,654 loss, the largest in the Zelenskyy suit market.
Misrepresentation of Key Information
FantomBets wrote an extensive thread covering the entire saga, focusing heavily on how the "Yes" side allegedly misrepresented key information. Let’s go over some of the key points from his post.
FantomBets emphasizes that Zelenskyy stood out as the "sore thumb" in the NATO summit photo, appearing to be the only leader not in a suit. He argues this visual impression, combined with a 1¢ entry price and the lure of a 100x return, drove many to join the "Yes" side despite the facts.
Calvin Hamilton replies to FantomBets, accusing him of grossly misrepresenting the story.
FantomBets responds to Calvin Hamilton’s comment by breaking down his list of reputable sources.
He argues that the burden of proof lies with the "Yes" holders to clearly demonstrate a consensus. Simply claiming the situation is mixed or suggesting a 50-50 compromise is not sufficient for resolution. Additionally, he points out that Polymarket clarified the market in a way that was consistent with the resolution of the previous month’s market, especially after what he describes as dangerous attempts to flip the outcome. He views this clarification as necessary, given how weak yet vocal the "Yes" argument has been.
Several other posters also engaged with threads by people unfamiliar with the situation, helping clarify key facts and question the credibility of certain sources. For example, mirbognik responded to Laura Shin’s post to offer corrections and additional context.
Bad Faith Arguments
FantomBets argues that hundreds of bettors, drawn by memecoin-style hype and the lure of a 100x trade, flooded the market with money and noise, posting over 24,000 comments. He claims many "Yes" holders are not pursuing truth but a payout, using social media pressure to overturn established rules. According to him, this behavior threatens the integrity and trust of the market resolution process.
FantomBets also criticizes the eight-day delay in resolving the market, calling the extended commit-reveal process absurd. He argues that, regardless of their actual claim, the "Yes" side coordinated efforts to flood the discussion with borderline sources, bulk evidence posts, and social media outreach to create the appearance of support. He likens these tactics to the viral dynamics behind memecoins and GameStop-style pumps, lacking fundamental backing.
Bsp10 highlights a group of bad-faith actors who bought in after the Polymarket clarification and are now trying to secure a 50x return. He argues that if social pressure is allowed to influence resolvers into overturning past decisions, the resulting precedent would be devastating.
Jordan tries to summarize the suit market using a venn diagram.
Meeseeks.eth questions why people feel cheated when they bought after the Polymarket clarification.
Ukraine Minerals Market Parallels
Observers quickly drew parallels to the Ukraine minerals market, one of UMA’s most controversial resolutions. In that case, traders entered around 6¢ to 10¢, pushed misleading narratives, and ultimately forced a disputed “Yes” result. The same pattern of low-entry positioning, suspected bad-faith arguments, and tactical proposal timing was now alleged in the suit market.
Given all this, many saw the "Yes" campaign not as a sincere interpretation of the outfit, but as a coordinated effort built on early positioning, selective media framing, and strategic use of dispute mechanics. Rewarding it with a 100¢ resolution, 50-50 split, or even a refund was seen as legitimizing bad-faith tactics. To critics, buying "Yes" shares at 2¢ and later insisting the market clearly deserved a full 100¢ payout came off as disingenuous at best and manipulative at worst.
Ultimately, the situation also raised broader concerns about whether the oracle system is truly resistant to social media influence and coordinated pressure. These are questions that go beyond this market and touch the core of decentralized resolution integrity.
Coming Up
Now that we’ve covered the accusations from both sides, we’ll turn to how the final vote unfolded.
Last updated