UMA's Abuse of Precedence

Domer criticized UMA for enforcing imaginary, non-standard rules and dismissed the idea of precedent.

Prince of Seleucid called out UMA for relying on precedent and prior practice instead of what was actually specified for this market, which led to inconsistency and confusion. This frustration was echoed throughout the discussion, as participants pointed out how inconsistent precedent could be. In response, some UMA members argued that many people were simply uninformed about the rules.

Doubts about UMA grew, with some suggesting it was a closed oracle that only a few could understand and profit from.

FhantomBets shared a conversation between Polymarket and UMA explicitly stating that precedents are very bad and should be avoided.

However, Jessica warns against misleading voters, pointing out that while Polymarket made a general statement, they did not address this specific dispute. Jessica also notes that both Polymarket and UMA decided that post-car inspections were required to resolve the market.

Precedent Inconsistencies

FhantomBets argued that precedent had become a catch-all justification used by UMA.

He pointed out that in the earliest F1 markets, resolutions happened immediately after the race. Only after several disputes did Polymarket add the "final results" clause.

This change challenged UMA's use of precedent and highlighted the shifting nature of Oracle philosophy. The current approach emphasizes finalized results, especially for sports. Precedent is a relatively recent philosophy, and UMA's stance in 2022 was not the same as it is now.

FhantomBets also compared the differing practices between F1 and NASCAR markets.

Precedent Philosophy

Several users criticized the overall philosophy of precedent, especially when it is assumed rather than openly discussed. For example, some questioned whether a proposal accepted without challenge or debate should carry the same weight as those that are publicly disputed and discussed.

Tomorrow and Fhantom debated this point, with Tomorrow describing unchallenged proposals as "slipping by" and Fhantom taking issue with this characterization.

Puddinpop and Michael52899 added that it is unfair for precedent decisions to be accessible only to UMA members.

Longtime UMA members Verrissimus and Lonfus reflected on the significance of precedent and their own experiences with disputed outcomes.

Controversial Use of P4

Nemo raised concerns about the use of P4 (Too Early) as a tactic to block clear outcomes. He also observed that excessive procedure was holding UMA back.

He suggested that the current dispute felt more like manipulation than legitimate oversight, especially since disputers had a financial incentive to challenge proposals.

Financial Incentives

The situation worsened when UMA members were seen celebrating successful disputes. Every $750 dispute could earn a disputer $250, and disputing all 43 would result in $10,750 in rewards. For some, this seemed like the perfect payday scheme.

JessicaOnlyChild was also criticized for her frequent dispute alerts in sports markets, as she stood to earn 25 UMA from a single alert.

Finally, familiar arguments resurfaced regarding potential conflicts of interest and controversy between Polymarket and UMA.

Summary

Some participants argued that UMA's reliance on precedent created inconsistency and confusion, since the market rules did not specify whether preliminary or final results were required. The rules only referred to "the driver who wins the event," with the resolution source as "information from NASCAR." Some pointed out that previous markets had been resolved differently, and that precedent was often used as a catch-all explanation rather than being based on clear guidelines. Others noted that financial incentives encouraged users to dispute proposals, further complicating trust in the process. As a result, there was no clear consensus on whether UMA's handling was fair or consistent, and debates over precedent, procedure, and profit motives continued to divide the community.

Coming Up

Now that we've covered the dispute process arguments, we look at whether UMA's approach was consistent with sportsbook norms.