Community Feedback

Despite an overwhelming number of posts criticizing Polymarket over the suit market and past controversies, three main recommendations for improvement emerged.

The Lack of Learning Resources

TylerD highlighted the lack of accessible resources from Polymarket explaining the market resolution process and the role of the UMA oracle, pointing to confusion among traders as a result.

In response, HugoMartingale directed him to the official Polymarket and UMA Docs.

The lack of an accessible knowledge base contributed to widespread confusion, as users frequently shared factually incorrect information about how Polymarket and UMA governance work, as seen in posts like this one from WR_Crypto.

Several users, such as Pete Jones and GenaTheCrocodile, publicly called out these inaccuracies. However, the spread of misinformation reflects more on the lack of accessible education than on individual users themselves.

Hopefully, resources like PolymarketGuide can serve as a reliable knowledge base for the community.

Insufficient Market Rules

Adam Cochran suggests that markets should include a more comprehensive set of rules. He points out that while simple language is helpful, it often lacks the precision needed to prevent ambiguity, especially since most people don’t write or interpret contract-style language well.

Nevertheless, it’s true that no one wants to read a long, complex rulebook in the market description. Polymarket should aim to balance clarity with accessibility.

The simple majority required to pass a vote has since been updated to 65% of all staked UMA.

One possible solution is to adopt simpler, clearly stated rules in the market description, along with a link to a full set of detailed rules, similar to what was done in the Nothing Ever Happens markets.

In that case, the detailed market rules were copied directly from ongoing markets.

Debates Over Centralized Decision-Making

Charlie Noyes, an investor at Paradigm and backer of Kalshi, suggested the need for clearer authority, similar to Kalshi’s centralized resolution approach.

Hugo Martingale mocked Charlie's statement that maximum centralization as the most effective solution. Martin Köppelmann noted that when a market trades at 1%, it signals a strong expectation of a “No” outcome. He argues that ignoring such a signal would be a failure in design and could justify centralized intervention.

Jordan also joined in, criticizing the move toward greater centralization.

A unifying theme across many of these arguments is the question of how involved Polymarket should be in market creation. Critics argue that Polymarket should take a more active role in ensuring markets are clearly defined from the start, and if issues arise, it should be more proactive in providing timely clarifications and guidance. Taking this approach could prevent much of the confusion and controversy seen in recent markets.

This also ties into the broader issue of education. The lack of an accessible knowledge base has left many users unclear about how resolution works or where ultimate authority lies, leading to the spread of misinformation and growing frustration during contentious markets. This guide aims to help fill that gap by providing a clear, factual resource for navigating Polymarket and UMA resolutions.