> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://polymarketguide.gitbook.io/polymarketguide/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://polymarketguide.gitbook.io/polymarketguide/case-studies/the-wizard-chronicles/polymarkets-response.md).
# Polymarket's Response
### Polymarket Reaches Out to UMA
Shortly after Wizard's dispute started gaining traction, Polymarket reached out to UMA to collaborate on better rule development. Polymarket also suggested to UMA that precedents should be avoided.
In response, several UMA community members offered suggestions.
Two days later, Lee from Risk Labs shared a message from Polymarket expressing their hope that the broader Polymarket and UMA community could find a Schelling point for fair precedents. The message also highlighted the importance of making these precedents available to the rule writer.
### Polymarket Creates a New Market With Updated Rules
The following day, July 22, Polymarket released a new set of NASCAR markets for the next event. The updated rules clearly stated that resolution would wait for the post-race inspection, and that the inspection outcome would determine the official race result. The F1 market rules were updated as well.
#### Community Response
Wizard, while still hoping for a refund, recognized this as a positive move toward consistency and submitted a formal refund proposal.
### Official Statement
Later that day, Polymarket issued an official statement on the UMA bond situation. The team said UMA would work on solutions to prevent similar issues in the future, but confirmed that there would be no clarification or refund for the current market.
#### Community Response
User reactions to Polymarket's response were mixed. Notably, neither Polymarket nor UMA has ever issued a refund for a disputed proposal.
Flame praised the decision, noting that providing a refund once could set a precedent for future expectations.
Some users also speculated about how UMA might develop new features to address future market losses.
### UMA's Response
On July 25, UMA announced it was working with Polymarket on a system to consolidate resolution requests for negative risk markets. The goal was to improve clarity, streamline processes, and give Polymarket more direct control over resolution parameters.
Four days later, UMA released an official Oracle proposal introducing these changes: [UMIP-189: Approve new ManagedOptimisticOracleV2 Deployment](https://discourse.uma.xyz/t/umip-189-approve-new-managedoptimisticoraclev2-deployment/).
The new Oracle framework includes tools to let Polymarket's integrator admin more easily modify parameters like bond amount, liveness period, and proposer permissions across their markets.
On August 2, UMIP-189 underwent a governance vote with several users supporting it.
On August 6, UMA implemented [UMIP-189](/polymarketguide/case-studies/securing-the-oracle.md).
#### Summary
Polymarket's response to the controversy centered on improving future rule clarity and coordination with UMA, but stopped short of providing refunds for the affected market. The community remained divided, with some welcoming the clearer rules and others still disappointed by the lack of retroactive resolution. UMA followed with a proposed Oracle upgrade, releasing UMIP-189 on July 29 to give Polymarket more flexibility over resolution settings. The update includes tools for adjusting bond size, liveness period, and proposer access across markets.
#### Coming Up
In the final chapter, we examine how Wizard's proposal disputes resolved, their impact, and how the chronicles shaped the Polymarket–UMA partnership.
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)
.png?alt=media)