The Narrative Escalates
As the debate escalated, activity spread beyond individual claims into organized campaigns, document drops, and challenges to the resolution process itself.
Organized Evidence Campaigns
Evidence packs circulated widely. One of the most widely circulated was compiled by Calvin Hamilton, who put together over 14 pages of media screenshots, timeline annotations, and commentary. The document tracked headlines that described the outfit as a suit, followed media coverage of the market, and raised concerns about UMA’s resolution framework. These materials were widely reposted and became the foundation of a broader push from the "Yes" side, while also raising questions about the reliability of the UMA oracle itself.
Calvin Hamilton also went on the Unchained podcast to discuss the controversy.
Social Media Reactions
The market sparked intense discussion across Polymarket’s on-site comments, Discord channels, and platforms like X and Reddit. Many users questioned why the market hadn’t resolved to “Yes,” pointing to headlines and images as clear evidence.
GrindingPoet criticized the delay, arguing that even Polymarket’s own team had referred to the outfit as a suit, which they saw as sufficient justification for a "Yes" resolution.
DefendDoge directly called the market a scam, reflecting the growing distrust toward Polymarket.
Defipolice called for Polymarket to "abandon UMA" and "do the right thing," criticizing both the vote outcome and the UMA dispute structure.
X threads also alleged clear manipulation by Polymarket, amplifying concerns about fairness and transparency.
The suit market also found its way to Reddit.
An account potentially linked to Kalshi entered the market.
Accusations of Manipulation
Others noted that Polymarket’s own social media accounts had described the outfit as a suit, further fueling the argument that public-facing channels supported a "Yes" interpretation.
UMA came under fire for running a public poll on X, asking users whether the outfit should be considered a suit.
Coffeezilla’s name appeared in one of the Discord servers, though he made no public statement. Martin Shkreli briefly addressed the dispute on stream, claiming that both Polymarket and UMA were a scam.
Mainstream Media Coverage
Several publications covered the growing tension. Cointelegraph described how Zelenskyy's "suit" became the center of a massive Polymarket fight. The Defiant framed the market as a messy showdown over resolution standards. Protos emphasized its scale, calling it a $58 million bet approaching resolution.
WIRED covers the market, emphasizing how a large number of UMA tokens are controlled by whales (Sentora).
At one point, someone updated the Wikipedia page for "Suit" to include a photo of Zelenskyy wearing a black suit. The change was quickly reverted within minutes.
Community Commentary
Writers such as Polynoob and Mr. Ozi published longer-form articles analyzing the dispute with more context, including how the market was structured, how UMA resolves ambiguity, and how media interpretation played a role.
"Yes" advocates proposed forming a "media integrity team" to oversee disputed markets, sharing the idea on Polymarket Feedback where it received over 900 upvotes. Others on the same thread criticized the underlying oracle, arguing that while Polymarket claims to be decentralized, its integration with UMA lacks transparency and accountability.
Polymarket Clarification
On July 1, just before the second voting period, Polymarket posted a clarification: "a consensus of credible reporting has not confirmed that Zelenskyy has worn a suit." The announcement was met with frustration from many "Yes" supporters, who viewed media coverage as overwhelmingly in their favor.
Coming Up
Next, we’ll take a look at how the community responded on social media, offering critiques and recommendations for how Polymarket can improve going forward.
Last updated