All Precedents
Note: This archive summarizes precedents based on past UMA Oracle resolutions. While it strives for consistency, interpretations may evolve over time. As the UMA Oracle's practices change, the archive will continue to be updated to reflect its current tendencies and reasoning.
Always consult the market's resolution criteria first, as they define the explicit terms for each market. This archive offers a collection of implicit rules and guiding precedents that help interpret edge cases or situations not fully covered in the criteria. It is meant to supplement, not override, what is written in the market interface.
Current Oracle Philosophy
Current UMA Oracle philosophy prioritizes clarity, efficiency, and alignment with market expectations.
Early Resolution and Consensus
One reflection of this is the tendency to resolve markets early when outcomes are overwhelmingly clear. When a market is already trading near 99.8%, voters may choose to resolve early to avoid unnecessary delays, particularly when the outcome is effectively certain. In these cases, a consensus of credible reporting may be used more broadly, even without formal confirmation. This approach has been applied more liberally in recent periods, particularly in contexts like sports transfers, small-scale elections, and similar events where timely reporting is generally reliable.
Waiting for Finalized Data
Another pattern is the insistence on using the formal resolution source, even when preliminary data appears reliable or unlikely to change. In some cases, this caution is warranted. For example, in NASCAR markets, early results have been overturned after post-race reviews or penalties, so waiting for the official final classification helps avoid premature or incorrect resolutions.
However, this approach is sometimes applied even when the official data is unlikely to differ from preliminary reporting. One example is the use of the Federal Register to count the number of executive orders issued by a U.S. president. While sources like the White House website or the Presidential Actions page often publish accurate and timely counts, voters have still insisted on waiting for the formal entry in the Register, even when no meaningful changes are expected. This practice reflects a broader principle of sticking to the listed resolution criteria and prioritizing consistency and verifiability, especially in cases like the Federal Register, which is often the explicitly named resolution source. Still, this approach can occasionally come at the cost of speed or common sense.
At the same time, strict adherence to finalized data has been criticized for encouraging disputes based on technicalities rather than substance. In some cases, challenges have been raised not because the outcome itself is unclear, but because the resolution source has not yet been updated or cited in an exact format. This practice, sometimes referred to as "dispute hunting," can lead to unnecessary delays and frustrate users who view the result as already settled in practical terms.
Proposer Due Diligence
There is often an assumption of proposer due diligence, that proposers are familiar with the resolution source and understand whether the data being used is preliminary or finalized. While Polymarket's rules do not always make these distinctions explicit, the burden often falls on the proposer to understand them. In cases where resolution rules are broad or silent on certain technicalities, proposals made without deeper familiarity with the source's reporting practices can lead to avoidable disputes.
This is especially relevant in markets where initial data is expected to be preliminary, based on the resolution source's official policy. For instance, in NASCAR markets, early race results often appear immediately but remain subject to review, protest, or penalties. While Polymarket's rules might not mention this distinction, the difference between preliminary and official results is documented in NASCAR's own policies. Proposers unfamiliar with this nuance might submit a proposal based on early data, only for it to be disputed because the data was not yet official.
A similar issue arose in the market Megaquake before August? where a proposal was made shortly after the USGS, the listed resolution source, reported a qualifying earthquake. However, seismic data is routinely revised, sometimes within hours, and those revisions, regardless of size or impact, can be used to justify a dispute. In this case, the proposal relied on accurate reporting at the time but lacked consideration for the source's policy and practice of updating data shortly after publication.
In practice, proposers are expected to have in-depth knowledge of the resolution source, not just surface-level awareness of the rules. That includes understanding how the data behaves, how it is published, and whether it is subject to revision. Without that knowledge, even well-intentioned proposals can trigger disputes that could have been avoided with proper due diligence. In some cases, this may even invite dispute hunting, where others look for a technicality before the proposal is accepted.
The Spirit of the Market
The Oracle considers the spirit and intent of the market, especially at the time of its creation. Resolution criteria are the primary guide, but interpretation also reflects how a reasonable participant would have understood the market at launch, balancing the text with its intended context.
The spirit of a market can either be restrictive or inclusive, depending on what participants reasonably understood it to cover. For example, if a market asks whether a person ate a sandwich, most would assume that hot dogs are excluded, even if some technical definitions might include them. That exclusion reflects the spirit of the market as participants likely understood it.
Conversely, some markets are written more broadly, with a spirit that leans toward inclusion unless specific limits are clearly defined. Take a market on whether Donald Trump gives someone a nickname. Even if examples are listed, participants might reasonably interpret the spirit to include anything that clearly functions as a nickname. It doesn't need to follow a strict formula. If it sounds like a nickname and lands like one, it probably is. In inclusive, spirit-driven markets, a qualifying event is immediately recognizable when it happens.
In some cases, the spirit of the market is clear. In others, it becomes a point of debate and is interpreted differently by participants. Often, the intended meaning is assumed to be understood unless ambiguity arises or a dispute is raised. When that happens, clarifications are used to surface and define the market's intent.
A Democratic Oracle
The Oracle process is fundamentally collaborative. That means involving a broad range of participants from different backgrounds, perspectives, and communities in discussions around market resolution, interpretation, precedent, and edge cases. It should not be limited to a small circle of longtime Oracle participants or core community members.
Prior to July 2025, most resolution discussions were shaped by a small group of UMA community members who held disproportionate influence over how outcomes were interpreted. Even as more users joined the Oracle process in early 2025, decision-making remained largely concentrated within that core group. In July, Polymarket issued a public statement encouraging a more open and collaborative Oracle process, one accessible to all users and not just longtime governance participants.
Today, much of the discussion around resolutions takes place across fragmented communities, including Discord, X, and various forums, often without direct coordination. For the Oracle to function in a truly collaborative way, it is important to listen across platforms and engage with a wide range of voices and perspectives.
An Inconsistent Oracle
The UMA Oracle’s resolution logic can sometimes appear inconsistent across different market types, especially in how it applies the consensus of credible reporting standard. In a sports market, voters may reject early or unofficial reporting because of the possibility of last-minute changes. In political markets, similar reporting is often accepted, even when the outcome could still shift, such as in ranked-choice elections.
Consider the 2025 Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix Winner market, which stated:
The primary resolution source will be official information from IndyCar (https://www.indycar.com/Results), however, a consensus of credible reporting may also be used.
Despite this clear allowance for the use of consensus, a proposal to resolve the market after a credible consensus had already formed was successfully disputed. Voters rejected the use of consensus reporting and argued that full official confirmation from IndyCar was required before resolution.
This stands in contrast to the Who will win Dem nomination for NYC Mayor? market, which stated:
The resolution source for this market will be the first announcement of the results from the Democratic Primary, however an overwhelming consensus of credible reporting may suffice.
In that case, the market was resolved based on consensus of credible reporting, without waiting for official publication. No dispute was raised, and the use of consensus was accepted as valid.
This inconsistency can be confusing for participants. When two markets both include:
a clear allowance for resolution based on consensus of credible reporting, and
a possibility that results may still change,
but only one is pushed to P4 while the other resolves without issue, it sends conflicting signals.
This is not just a matter of comparing sports to politics. It raises a broader question about whether the Oracle is applying resolution rules consistently. If a market explicitly allows resolution based on consensus of credible reporting, that standard should be honored regardless of the subject matter. Failing to do so undermines the credibility of the UMA Oracle and makes it harder for participants to understand and trust the resolution process.
Market Intention
Markets resolve according to the clear intent of the Polymarket interface, even if a strict literal reading or technical interpretation could suggest otherwise. Context, public understanding, and prior market outcomes can inform how intent is applied. When ambiguity exists, users are expected to read resolution criteria to understand what the market is asking.
Examples
MicroStrategy changes name to "Strategy" Though the company officially rebranded, it was clear that MicroStrategy and Strategy referred to the same entity. The market resolved accordingly.
Will Elon leave DOGE? A previous market, Will Elon join DOGE, resolved as Yes. Even if one could argue Elon never formally "joined," the prior resolution established that he had. This shaped the intent for the follow‑up market, which resolved based on that continuity.
US recession in 2025? This market asked whether the NBER would publicly announce a recession in 2025. The resolution relied on a declaration from the NBER, which is the widely accepted authority for defining US recessions. Alternative definitions were not considered, aligning with the market’s intent to capture a recognized formal designation.
When the Polymarket interface clearly defines what the market is intended to capture, intent prevails over literal interpretations, technical exceptions, or evolving terminology.
Official Sources
These markets require confirmation from an official or authoritative source before resolution. Consensus of credible reporting is not sufficient when outcomes depend on formal statements, certified data, or recorded events.
Elections: Markets may allow for resolution based on credible reporting, but in many cases, official or certified results are required. This is especially true for ranked-choice or contested elections, where early calls may later change. Example: Who will win the Dem nomination for NYC Mayor?
Economic Indicators: Markets tied to metrics like CPI, GDP, or employment must wait for the official release from a government agency or trusted economic source. Estimates or leaks do not suffice unless the market explicitly permits consensus-based resolution. Example: Will the June CPI exceed 3.5% year-over-year?
Government Announcements: Markets involving government decisions must wait for formal documentation, such as statements from the Federal Reserve, White House, or similar official sources. Reporting or speculation does not qualify. Example: Will the Fed raise interest rates at the July 2025 meeting?
Corporate Results: Markets focused on company performance must wait for the official press release from the company's investor relations site. Rumors, analyst commentary, or early leaks are not valid. Example: Tesla deliveries this quarter? (Resolution source: https://ir.tesla.com/press)
Interviews / Earnings Calls: Markets based on events like interviews, press conferences, or earnings calls must rely on the actual video or audio recording. Summaries or third-party reporting are not acceptable resolution sources. Example: What will Elon Musk say during Tesla Q1 2025 earnings call? (Resolution source: audio of the event)
Sports: High-profile sports markets require confirmation from the official governing body, especially where results may change due to reviews, penalties, or appeals. In lower-profile events, a consensus of credible reporting may be allowed if the market explicitly states so. Example: F1 Constructors Champion (Resolution source: F1)
Source Data and Timing
Time Inclusion
Markets include the final minute listed. For example, if a market ends at 11:59 PM, the full 11:59 PM minute is part of the market window.
If no cutoff time is specified, resolution should wait until the slowest applicable time zone has passed, based on the source institution’s coverage if that time zone is later than Eastern Time. For example, the FAA operates across all U.S. time zones, so resolution should wait until 11:59 PM Hawaii Time (the slowest U.S. time zone). Not all U.S.-based sources require this; only those that explicitly include all U.S. time zones.
In the market Another commercial airline evacuation before March?, a "No" proposal was submitted shortly after 12:00 AM ET on March 1. However, because the FAA reports incidents in local time, including Hawaii, it was still February 28 in the slowest applicable zone. Since Hawaii-Aleutian Time is five hours behind Eastern Time, the market remained open. Resolution could not confirm "No" until 11:59 PM Hawaii Time on February 28 had passed, which corresponds to 5:00 AM ET on March 1.
If the source does not operate across multiple time zones, or if it is international and does not specify otherwise, the market can likely resolve based on 11:59 PM Eastern Time.
Resolving Early
If a market requires an event to officially occur and that event cannot happen before a certain time or date, the market cannot resolve early unless explicitly stated.
Examples
In the market Fed decision in July?, the outcome depends on the official FOMC statement scheduled for July 29–30, 2025. It cannot resolve before the event, even if the decision is widely reported in advance.
In a market like Super Bowl Champion 2025, an early resolution clause allows the market to resolve before the Super Bowl if a team is mathematically eliminated.
Example clause: If at any point it becomes impossible for this team to win the Super Bowl based on the rules of the NFL (e.g. they are eliminated in the playoff bracket), this market will resolve immediately to 'No'.
Clearly Incorrect Data
Initial data from an official source can be disregarded if it is clearly wrong, even if it appears first. Example: If a price feed briefly displays a major glitch (like BTC at $1), that value would not be used for resolution. Similarly, if a source is suspected to be hacked or manipulated, its data is no longer considered valid even if it appears to come from the named source.
Preliminary vs Final Information
When a market calls for final or official data, early or unofficial versions from the source are not sufficient unless the market explicitly allows them. Resolution should rely on the final confirmed version.
When the market does not specify whether the data should be final or preliminary, there is a general preference toward using official and final data. This preference applies even if the resolution source does not explicitly label the data as preliminary or final in its statements, as long as its policies or standard practices make it clear that a final version is released later (e.g., NASCAR).
Proposals Submitted Too Early
A proposal may be rejected as Too Early (P4) if the required data is not yet available.
However, if a proposal is made when sufficient valid data exists to satisfy the resolution criteria, it may be accepted even if contradictory information emerges later. All relevant data must be considered, but if the proposal was valid at the time it was submitted, later developments do not invalidate it.
On the other hand, if no proposal is submitted before contradictory data emerges, then the initial data may no longer be sufficient. In that case, the market must be evaluated using the full set of information, including the new conflicting evidence.
Voter preference for waiting is not enough to justify a P4 dispute if the resolution criteria have already been met.
Event Deadline vs Data Availability Deadline
Sometimes, an event may occur within the market window but not yet appear on the named resolution source. In these cases, the market cannot resolve until the event is verifiably listed on that source. It is important to distinguish between the deadline for the event to occur and the deadline for the data to appear. The event must happen within the market window, but the data confirming it may appear later, as long as it is published within a defined grace period. Resolution must follow the specific source named in the market criteria, not external reports or assumptions.
Earthquakes
In the market Earthquake 7.0 or above before August?, the resolution source is the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program. If a 7.0 or greater earthquake occurs within the market window but has not yet appeared on the USGS list, the market remains open. The market may stay open until August 7, 2025, 11:59 PM ET, or until the earthquake appears on the resolution source. If it still has not appeared on the source by that time, the original deadline has passed and the market may then resolve based on another credible source that confirms the event occurred.
Revision Window
If a qualifying earthquake is registered before the deadline, the market will remain open for 24 hours to account for any revisions to its recorded magnitude. After this revision window, the market will resolve according to the latest available data. In this case, the data availability and revision window override the market's formal closing time, ensuring the resolution reflects finalized information. For example, if an earthquake is registered just before the deadline, the market would remain open past the market deadline to allow for any updates to its magnitude.
Executive Orders
Another example is markets involving executive orders. While the event deadline might be the end of the day the order is expected, the data availability deadline is 12:00 PM ET the following day. This delay accounts for publication lag in the Federal Register and ensures resolution is based on when the information becomes verifiably available in the named source. If the order does not appear by that time, the market resolves to "No," even if the order was signed.
This approach ensures that resolution is based on verifiable, published data from the named source. Even if the event is known through other channels, the market should not resolve until it is reflected in the official source or the fallback conditions are met.
When to Wait For The Next Data Point
These markets require a new data point to confirm finality before resolution can proceed. Proposing too early will result in a dispute.
Weather markets: Weather markets require the next data point to resolve. For example,
This market will resolve to the temperature range that contains the highest temperature recorded at the London City Airport Station in degrees Fahrenheit on 27 Jun '25.
requires the temperature for the first hour of June 28, 2025 to be finalized before the market can be proposed.
Approval Ratings: Markets tracking approval must wait for the next rating to appear. This ensures the final data point relevant to the question is confirmed and not subject to revision.
Polls: Poll-based markets that reference a particular pollster or average must wait for the next release to confirm whether the stated threshold was exceeded or maintained.
Early Resolution
Early resolution clauses allow a market to resolve before the official event takes place.
This is typically indicated by the phrase "however a consensus of credible reporting may suffice." For example, in Who will win the Dem nomination for NYC Mayor?:
The resolution source for this market will be the first announcement of the results from the Democratic Primary, however an overwhelming consensus of credible reporting may suffice.
This means the market may resolve before official results if trusted media sources unanimously agree on the outcome, even if official confirmation is expected shortly after.
Resolution is based on the information available at the time of proposal. If there was a clear and overwhelming media consensus at that moment, and the market allows early resolution via such consensus, then the resolution is valid even if the official source later contradicts it.
This only applies if:
The media consensus is strong, clear, and unambiguous at the time of resolution.
The market rules explicitly allow early resolution via credible reporting.
A consensus of credible reporting may be used instead of an official source if early resolution is permitted and the official confirmation is expected later.
Additionally, if it becomes materially impossible for a candidate or outcome to proceed, such as through concession or missing a required filing deadline, it may justify early resolution, provided it aligns with the reporting consensus.
Consensus
However, if the market explicitly requires official certification or a named source and does not allow resolution through credible reporting, then media projections, concessions, or consensus are not sufficient. The market must wait for the official source regardless of how certain the outcome appears.
A consensus of credible reporting is the standard early resolution clause. Markets without such a clause generally cannot be proposed early.
Generally, national-level or federal events, such as Senate or Presidential elections, require official certification for resolution. In contrast, local or lower-profile events may permit resolution based on a consensus of credible reporting.
Sports
Games & Competitions
Markets in this category include championship outcomes, individual awards, and performance milestones. They all require resolution based on the official result from the sport’s governing body or designated event operator. This includes organizations such as the NFL, NBA, NCAA, or official tournament operators in esports (e.g., HLTV for CS2).
Only the designated official source listed in the market may be used to determine the result. Sportsbooks, betting platforms, and news outlets are not valid for confirming outcomes or start times.
Third-party data providers (such as CBB for college basketball) may assist with verifying start times or in-game events, but they are not final authorities for resolution.
Games are not allowed to begin early unless explicitly stated by the governing body. UMA resolutions must rely on official league schedules or trusted data sources when market timing is relevant.
Sports markets are often proposed too early, sometimes immediately after the game clock hits zero, before the result is officially confirmed. This can lead to disputes, especially when footage is under review or the final result is subject to change (e.g., due to penalties, fouls, or score corrections). To avoid premature proposals, market creators should wait for official confirmation from the listed governing body before submitting.
Examples
Super Bowl Champion 2025 (Resolution source: NFL)
NBA Finals: Will any player score 40+ points? (Resolution source: NBA)
Europa League Final: Player of the Match (Resolution source: Europa League)
Transfer & Roster Markets
Markets involving player transfers, team changes, or roster movements are not always tied to a governing body. These rely on official announcements from involved parties such as the player, teams, or clubs.
Sporting news sites may report the outcome early, but the market should only resolve once confirmation comes from an official source named in the market description.
Examples
Will Neymar leave Al-Hilal? (Resolution sources: Neymar, Al-Hilal, or the signing club)
Will Jordan Henderson leave Saudi Arabia this transfer window? (Resolution sources: Al-Ettifaq or the signing club)
Which Soccer Players Will Sign With New Clubs? (Resolution sources: the clubs involved, a consensus of credible reporting)
Sporting news outlets (e.g., ESPN, Fabrizio Romano, L'Équipe) may provide early consensus, but resolution depends on a formal announcement from directly involved parties.
Event Participation & Hosting
These markets focus on where, when, or who participates in events. Resolution typically requires official confirmation from the governing body, although in some cases a consensus of credible reporting may also be used if permitted by the market rules.
Examples
Will Novak Djokovic play in the 2022 French Open? (Resolution sources: French Open, credible media sources)
Will Novak Djokovic win a gold medal in Paris? (Resolution sources: International Olympic Committee, a consensus of credible reporting)
Will the 2021 Tokyo Olympics take place? (Resolution sources: International Olympic Committee, official Olympics site, Markets Integrity Committee)
Politics
This section covers resolution standards for political markets, including appointments, elections, government actions, and certified processes.
Senate Appointments
A cabinet nominee is considered confirmed only once the Senate vote is closed, meaning the result has been announced. Example: A nominee announced as confirmed on the Senate floor is eligible for market resolution. Ongoing votes or delays do not count.
Senator Votes
If a market depends on how a Senator voted on a specific item, resolution requires that the vote be officially closed. Until then, any reported intentions or tallies are insufficient.
Elections & Primaries
Markets that reference certified votes for specific states cannot resolve until those states have officially certified results statewide, not just at a local level. Example: If a market asks Has Georgia certified the vote?, county certification is not sufficient. The statewide certification must occur.
Consensus of Credible Reporting
In some cases (e.g., a candidate concedes or a mathematical path becomes impossible), the market may resolve based on consensus of credible reporting, but only if resolution criteria or timing allows for it.
Executive Orders
Markets requiring the publication of an executive order must verify it through the Federal Register, not just press briefings or statements.
Executive actions or announcements do not qualify.
If no executive order appears in the Federal Register by 12:00 PM ET the day after the listed date, the market resolves to "No."
This delay exists to account for lag in publication. Orders signed late in the day may appear the next morning.
Conferences & Events
Markets tied to political events (e.g., summits, meetings) resolve based on the first formal moment of contact, such as a handshake, main speech, or closed-door meeting. Example: A brief conversation before the public speech may count as the first point of contact if it occurs in an official capacity.
Visits
Markets referring to presidential or diplomatic visits generally require the individual to physically enter the terrestrial or maritime territory of the listed country. Example: In Will Trump visit China before September?, a "visit" is defined as Trump physically entering Chinese land or maritime territory. Merely flying over or entering Chinese airspace does not count toward resolution. The visit must be confirmed by official information or credible reporting indicating that Trump physically entered the country’s land or maritime territory.
This definition applies broadly unless the market explicitly states that airspace or alternative forms of contact count.
Crypto
Markets involving crypto assets often raise edge cases involving prices, airdrops, token launches, or strategic holdings. Resolution depends on verifiable outcomes, not early announcements, implied intent, or partial fulfillment. When ambiguity exists, markets are resolved according to how the interface phrasing aligns with objective reality, not based on speculation or precedent alone.
Examples
Crypto prices Markets based on a crypto asset reaching a price level (e.g., BTC to hit $70k) resolve once the price clearly reaches the specified threshold, typically as shown in a full candle or final tick on the stated data source. Temporary wicks that reverse within the same candle may not count, depending on how the price feed is interpreted. Traders should wait for the move to finalize on-chain or on the stated exchange before assuming a resolution is secure.
Launching a token Some markets ask whether a person or protocol has "launched its token." This remains a gray area without a universally applied precedent. Potential interpretations include:
When the token is announced
When the contract is deployed
When it becomes tradable or claimable
Until a resolution standard is established, such markets should be approached with caution.
For example, in the Hawk Tuah token by Thanksgiving market, there was disagreement over whether the token had "launched" when it was deployed, even though it had not been officially announced. The market was not disputed, so it’s unclear how a dispute would have been resolved. Moreover, not every market hinges on deployment; some use broader terms like “launch,” which adds further ambiguity. As of now, this remains an unsettled area without consistent resolution precedent.
Airdrops (e.g., LayerZero) The protocol must launch and announce they have performed an airdrop. Allocated tokens to Binance through Binance Alpha airdrops do not qualify.
Markets may also specify whether locked tokens count. For example, a market may state: "For the purposes of this market, locked tokens or nonswappable tokens will not suffice to resolve this market to Yes." This type of language excludes airdrops with restrictions unless the tokens are accessible in a tradable form.
The LayerZero airdrop raised questions about what qualifies as a "real" airdrop. Although tokens were distributed, some users were required to donate or complete extra steps to claim them. Resolution did not depend on fairness, typical airdrop structure, or how the distribution and redemption were designed. It was based on whether tokens were actually claimable and distributed during the market window.
Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (e.g., USA) A previous UMA dispute centered on whether the United States had established a strategic Bitcoin reserve. The debate involved whether seized or auctioned BTC counted, or whether on-chain holdings by U.S. agencies implied such a reserve. The resolution ultimately reflected the lack of any formal declaration or policy describing those holdings as strategic. Mere possession or control of BTC by a government does not fulfill the intent unless designated as a reserve.
When dealing with crypto markets, participants should closely read the resolution criteria and market interface. Resolution depends on objective, publicly verifiable outcomes, not assumed definitions or evolving community standards.
Product Launch
Markets about product or app launches typically hinge on whether the product is publicly accessible, including through open beta, rolling waitlists, or app store availability. Resolution depends on what counts as real-world access, not internal testing, private releases, or marketing terms.
Public Access
A product is considered publicly available if anyone can access it without being invited or selected. This includes open beta programs, open rolling waitlists, and paid access, as long as there are no eligibility restrictions. Access that is limited to testers, partners, or invite-only groups does not qualify. Regional availability may still count as public access, so long as it is open to the general public within that region and not restricted to a private or pre-approved user base.
In some cases, public access may begin shortly before an official announcement, which can still satisfy resolution criteria if the product is meaningfully accessible to the public at that time.
Example:
In the market Will Grok 4 be released by September 30?, Grok 4 was made available to X Premium+ users in Japan prior to the official announcement. Because access was open to anyone willing to subscribe, and not invite-gated or restricted to a private group, this did qualify as a public launch under standard resolution criteria.
App Store Launch
For markets involving mobile apps, the product must be live and installable on the specified app store (e.g. US iOS App Store). Pre-orders, placeholder listings, and TestFlight distributions do not qualify. The app should appear in public search results and be installable by any eligible user in the specified region.
Mention Markets
Mention markets track whether a specific word or phrase is spoken during a defined event. These phrases are typically nouns or noun-based expressions. For example, in the market What will Trump say during his Independence Day remarks on July 4?, there may be several related markets for phrases such as America/American 35+, Joe/Biden, or Space Force.
If a phrase includes an either-or structure, such as Joe/Biden, either word will count as a valid mention. When a market includes a number threshold, such as 35+, the number is inclusive. For example, any combination of thirty-five mentions of 'America' and 'American' would satisfy a market requiring 35 or more.
Mention markets can be proposed as Yes once the word or phrase has been said. However, they cannot be proposed as No until the event has ended.
Mentions must be spoken and occur within the specified timeframe. They must be part of publicly accessible audio or video. Written references, such as posts on social media or prepared text that is not read aloud, do not count.
The timeframe for valid mentions is typically tied to a single event, such as a speech, or a speech with a Q&A if applicable. Any mentions made before or after the designated event will not count toward the market’s resolution.
Only mentions of a word in its noun form will be accepted, unless otherwise stated. If a word can be used as both a noun and a verb, only the noun usage qualifies. Plural forms, possessive forms, and compound words are allowed. For example, the word 'judges' used as a verb would not count in a market about the word 'judge.'
Some markets may specify that all grammatical forms of a word will qualify. The market description will explicitly state this when applicable. For instance, in a market like Will Trump say "Fuck" again in June?, variations such as fucks, fucked, fucking, fucker, and fuckers would all be valid.
If the event is based on a taped recording, such as a pre-recorded interview or a recording scheduled for later release, and only a partial clip is available, a proposal of No should be delayed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a longer version exists or may still be released, the market should not be resolved as No until further confirmation is available. This may include an official source, a full interview transcript, or a complete video upload. A reasonable waiting period is typically until the end of the day, unless the market specifies otherwise.
If the event referenced in the market is canceled or never takes place, the market will resolve as No once the stated timeframe has passed.
Concurrent or Linked Markets
Some markets are connected either because they are about the same event or because only one can resolve "Yes." These links can cause problems when some markets resolve before others are finalized.
This becomes especially important when a dispute is still in progress. If other related markets are accepted and resolved without being challenged, they can influence the outcome of the disputed market. In many cases, if no P4 (Too Early) challenge is made against those markets, the Oracle may treat them as setting precedent that the timing of the proposals is not too early.
This creates a dilemma for disputers. If multiple related markets are proposed around the same time, the disputer may need to challenge all of them to preserve consistency. Otherwise, the unresolved dispute may be boxed in by what has already been accepted.
Single-outcome event markets
Single-outcome event markets refer to cases where only one outcome can be correct. These usually involve things like sports tournaments, elections, or awards, where only one team, person, or result can win.
Each outcome is often listed as its own separate market. For example, there might be one market for each team to win a championship. Only one of those markets can ultimately resolve "Yes."
If someone disputes the proposal for Team A on the grounds that it is too early, but proposals for Teams B through Z are accepted and resolved without being challenged, it creates a problem. Because the other teams were allowed to resolve without a P4 dispute, the Oracle will likely treat them as setting precedent that the timing of the proposals is not too early.
As a result, the Team A dispute would fail, even if the argument about timing was valid. The logic is that if the Oracle determined the other proposals were not too early, then Team A’s proposal could not have been too early either, assuming no new event occurred in between. This is different from a situation where an actual qualifying event takes place between the proposals. In that case, a timing-based argument may still succeed if it clearly applies only to one of the proposals based on when the event occurred.
To avoid these issues, the disputer must also challenge the other outcomes at the same time. This can be especially difficult when markets are proposed more than once. If someone mass-proposes all outcomes, the number of necessary disputes can grow quickly and become unmanageable. In these situations, a disputer may end up losing on a technicality rather than on the substance of their timing argument. This can be seen as a process failure rather than a disagreement over the actual criteria.
Identical markets across timeframes
Some markets ask the same question across different expiration windows. These are often identical in wording or use the same resolution criteria.
Examples
US–China trade deal before June?
Trump trade deal before June?
Trump trade deal before July?
If an event qualifies for the June market and the criteria are identical, it should also qualify for the July version, and vice versa. For example, if Trump signs a trade deal before the end of June, both Trump trade deal before June? and Trump trade deal before July? should resolve to "Yes."
Similarly, if US–China trade deal before June? resolves to "Yes," and Trump trade deal before June? includes that type of deal under its criteria, it may also resolve to "Yes." In that case, the broader outcome can apply to the more specific one, as long as the definitions and resolution criteria are inclusive.
Because of this overlap, users often wait and propose one timeframe at a time. If the first market resolves without challenge, the other markets can be proposed with more confidence. If it is disputed, users may choose not to propose the remaining versions. This helps avoid repeated or unnecessary disputes on markets that are functionally identical.
Technical definitions across timeframes
When a dispute establishes a specific technical definition, that definition is often applied to other versions of the same market, even when they cover different timeframes. Example: Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?
In the initial disputes, users debated both whether there was enough consensus and whether Zelenskyy was wearing a Western-style suit. The Oracle accepted a technical definition of what qualifies as a suit. That definition was then used again in other versions of the same market with identical criteria.
When both definition and consensus are part of a dispute, the outcome can create lasting precedent. Even in the same market, if there are multiple disputes over time, the original definition may continue to be applied, even if a stronger consensus of credible reporting emerges later. This can lead to situations where the fixed technical definition takes priority over a shifting or growing public interpretation.
Rolled Votes
Rolled votes tend to resolve as either P1 (No) or P2 (Yes) when they are at odds with P4 (Too Early). For example, if P4 has 60% of the votes and P2 has 40%, and neither meets the consensus threshold (65%), then in the next round, the vote will likely shift to P2. This often happens when voters decide that the event has occurred or not occurred, even if timing or clarity was uncertain in the first round.
Examples
Major cyberattack on Iran in June?
Fordow nuclear facility destroyed before July?
In both cases, early votes showed disagreement between P4 and P2, but a sizable portion of UMA stakers voted P2, and ultimately, both markets resolved to P2.
It’s also important to note that rolled votes can be heavily influenced by large voters. If a whale initially votes one way (such as P4) but later changes to P2, the final resolution will often follow that shift. This dynamic can create the appearance of consensus, even if most smaller voters remain divided or consistent in their positions.
Typos and Minor Errors
Markets resolve based on the content of the Polymarket interface, not on the UMA proposal or other supporting materials. Typos, such as incorrect years, misspelled names, or small inconsistencies in language, do not affect resolution when the intended meaning of the market is clear.
Examples
Super Bowl Championship 2026 The UMA proposal incorrectly referenced 2025, but the market interface consistently used 2026. The market resolved based on the interface and the typo was ignored.
Zohran Mamdan wins the Democratic primary for NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s name was misspelled. Nevertheless, the intent of the market was clear, and it resolved as intended.
However a consensus of credible reopening may also be used This phrase was included in a resolution note with a small grammatical error. The market resolved as expected based on its intended meaning, and the typo had no effect.
When the intent of the market is clear from the Polymarket interface, minor textual errors are ignored and do not affect resolution.
False Equivalences
False equivalences often arise when participants argue that a condition has been met, even though the evidence or impact falls short of the market's resolution criteria.
This often takes the form of three categories: event-level, phrase-level, and word-level false equivalence. We will take a look at two markets where these types of reasoning appear.
Will Iran close the Strait of Hormuz before July? This market will resolve to "Yes" if Iran halts or severely restricts international maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz before July 1. Otherwise, it will resolve to "No".
Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July? This market will resolve to "Yes" if Volodymyr Zelenskyy is photographed or videotaped wearing a suit between May 22 and June 30, 2025 ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
Event-Level False Equivalence
Misinterpreting what kind of real-world event qualifies.
Example: Treating a slowdown as equivalent to a closure. Focus: Misjudging the scale, nature, or completeness of the event.
In the Strait of Hormuz market, some participants claimed that a 50%+ drop in traffic caused by Iranian GPS jamming satisfied the resolution condition. But this treats a slowdown as equivalent to a closure, even though the criteria explicitly required halting or severely restricting maritime movement. Without a formal or clearly observable action by Iran, this interpretation overreaches the event's actual scope.
Phrase-Level False Equivalence
Loosely interpreting resolution phrases beyond their intended threshold.
Example: Treating any disruption as meeting the phrase "severely restricts." Focus: Stretching vague or flexible phrases without applying consistent standards.
The phrase "severely restricts" in the Strait of Hormuz market was interpreted by some to include any major disruption, even when indirect or speculative. But without a defined threshold, applying this phrase too loosely leads to inconsistency. Others argued that it requires clear and observable impediments to traffic, not just effects caused by uncertainty or deterrence.
Word-Level False Equivalence
Equating specific words with related but non-equivalent terms.
Example: Treating a suit jacket as equivalent to a suit. Focus: Substituting partial, qualified, or translated words that don't match the intended meaning.
In the Zelenskyy suit market, the word suit follows the spirit of the market: a Western-style suit, meaning a matching jacket and trousers made of the same material, typically worn with a dress shirt and often a tie.
A suit is not categorically the same as a suit jacket, jacket, or any term with a qualifier. These refer to individual components or variations, not a complete suit. Therefore, if media sources refer specifically to a suit jacket, it would not satisfy the meaning of suit.
Foreign-language terms like костюм, traje, or completo may qualify, but only if the context clearly refers to a Western-style suit. These words often have broader or narrower meanings, so a direct translation is not enough.
Resolution by Necessity
Some markets hinge on a single key event. In these situations, participants may argue that a borderline or ambiguous event must be considered, because there may be no clearer or more definitive occurrence before the deadline. The reasoning is that if a potential qualifying moment is ignored, the market might resolve "No" by default, even if something arguably satisfying the condition already occurred. As a result, these events are often examined under the pressure of necessity.
A clear example is the market Will anyone audibly fart during the Digital Asset Summit? If a vague noise that might be a fart is heard, some insist it qualifies. Their argument is that audible farts are rare and a more obvious example is unlikely to occur before the deadline, so this moment should be accepted on reasonable grounds. Others argue that without clarity, such as visual cues or an unmistakable sound, it does not meet the market's resolution criteria.
A similar case arose in the market Biden falls asleep during debate? President Biden later admitted he "almost fell asleep on stage" due to jet lag. If video shows him with his eyes closed and his head nodding, some users may argue that this counts, emphasizing that it is likely the only moment that even comes close. Opponents counter that without clear signs like full eye closure, slumping, or independent confirmation, the footage remains too ambiguous. In cases like this, "Yes" supporters may emphasize that the event must be considered under the logic of necessity, since no stronger or clearer evidence is expected before resolution.
"Yes" Proposals After Deadline
While most markets require waiting until the deadline to propose "No," "Yes" proposals typically do not have this restriction and can be submitted as soon as the relevant event occurs. However, some users occasionally propose "Yes" after the market deadline. This is often done strategically to avoid being P4'd and to force a vote between P1 and P2.
These late "Yes" proposals are generally unsuccessful. They often reference past events, claiming something happened earlier in the month, such as in mid-June, that satisfies the market condition. A good example is the market Will Tesla launch a driverless Robotaxi service before July? where a "Yes" proposal was submitted after the deadline, citing an event that supposedly occurred weeks earlier. At the time of the alleged event, the market was trading around 10 cents, indicating low trader confidence that the condition had been met.
If the event had clearly resolved the market, someone would have proposed "Yes" closer to when it happened and the books would reflect that shift. Instead, the lack of immediate action and price response suggests the event was not widely seen as qualifying. If nothing new has occurred between the referenced event and the market deadline, the default outcome is usually "No."
Dead on Arrival Markets
Markets must reference events that can still occur after the market’s creation and within its active window. If the event already happened before the market was created or cannot occur again, the market may be considered unresolvable. In rare cases, such markets may be pulled and all bettors refunded.
Events Before Market Creation
If the event occurred before the market was created, it falls outside the market’s scope and cannot be used for resolution. Example: Will Biden issue a preemptive pardon?
This market asked whether President Biden would issue a preemptive pardon for individuals not yet charged. Any pardon issued before the market was created could not be counted. The exclusion of individuals already pardoned at launch was built into the criteria, since including them would have meant the market resolved from the start.
One-Time Events That Have Already Occurred
Markets about one-time events that have already happened cannot resolve because the event cannot happen again. These may be pulled and bettors refunded. Example: SCOTUS agrees to hear a conversion therapy ban case in 2025?
This market asked whether the Supreme Court would take up a case banning conversion therapy in 2025. However, the Court had already agreed to hear such a case in March 2025 before the market was created. Because the outcome had already occurred, the market was pulled and all bets were refunded.
Markets Released Too Late
In some cases, markets are unintentionally published after a critical window has already passed, limiting the possibility of a qualifying event. Even if the event has not technically occurred yet, the delay may render resolution impossible under the stated criteria. Example: Supreme Court unblocks Alien Enemies Act? Polymarket issued a clarification noting that due to technical difficulties, this market was released later than intended. The market is considered dead on arrival, and because no qualifying event took place between the launch of the market and the resolution date, it will resolve to "No." All losses on trades incurred prior to the clarification were refunded. This is a rare occurrence, as Polymarket typically pulls markets when it becomes clear they are dead on arrival.
Clarifications to Preserve Market Validity
In rare cases, Polymarket may issue a clarification to prevent a market from being treated as dead on arrival, particularly when the original rules are ambiguous but the core intent remains resolvable. These clarifications typically occur when a literal interpretation of the rules would render the market unresolvable, even though the market clearly aimed to track a real-world outcome. Rather than pulling the market, Polymarket may revise or interpret the rule language to preserve functionality. Example: Astronomer Divorce Parlay
In the Astronomer Divorce Parlay market, the rules specified that both the CEO and CPO (Kristin Cabot) or their spouses must announce an intent to divorce. After uncertainty regarding whether Cabot was married or not, Polymarket clarified that if Cabot was unmarried at the time the market was created, that condition would still be satisfied. This allowed the market to remain valid rather than be treated as unresolvable due to an unmet or impossible clause. The clarification was heavily criticized by some participants, who viewed the rule as being retroactively stretched to preserve the market.
Last updated