The Rules Did Not Require Waiting

Prince of Seleucid repeats a sentiment echoed by several users: that it's not in the rules. He notes that Early Proposal supporters often appeal to something that isn't explicitly in the rules.

GuyWhoTrades adds that the NASCAR X account referenced them as winners, not "preliminary winners." This is true. NASCAR always declares preliminary winners as winners, then confirms their standing after the post-race inspection. He also notes that the relevant markets had zero volume, which undermines the position of Early Proposal supporters.

However, it isn't as simple as saying "zero volume," as UMA decisions are mostly based on precedent. If 43 markets resolve in this way, overturning past precedent, then future proposals would have to follow the same logic. This proposal dispute would essentially solidify whatever precedent is set, given its large scale.

FhantomBets and JessicaOnlyChild argued over similar markets and how UMA should handle ambiguous market rules.

Criticizing UMA for Adding to the Rules

As the dispute intensified, several longtime UMA members sided with Wizard, arguing that the proposals were submitted on time. Some users criticized UMA for introducing new requirements, especially since the market did not specify whether the winner needed to be preliminary or official.

SJ argued that the rules weren't necessarily wrong; they just required a deeper understanding of how a winner is determined. Rules will never be perfect and should not be taken at face value. Proposers should be doing their due diligence.

JessicaOnlyChild supports this, noting that many users unfamiliar with NASCAR procedures may rely on the result from the NASCAR X page rather than NASCAR.com. As a result, they might interpret the timing of the official winner announcement differently.

Summary

Several users argued that the Polymarket rules did not require waiting, and made no reference to whether the preliminary or official result was required. The rules only said "the driver who wins the event," with the resolution source being "information from NASCAR." It should also be noted that while NASCAR on X announced the winner and made no distinction, the NASCAR.com article specified that the story would be updated. Therefore, there was no consensus across NASCAR sources. However, through the arguments, it became clear that people unfamiliar with NASCAR policies and UMA precedent largely supported that the rules did not require waiting.

Coming Up

Having understood the first argument for Wizard, we move on to the next argument: that UMA was abusing its use of precedent.