Bad Market Descriptions

Not all Polymarket markets descriptions are written clearly. Poorly worded or ambiguous market descriptions can lead to confusion, disputes, and inconsistent resolutions. These issues often arise when:

Market rules are vague or undefined

Polymarket rules may lack precise definitions or fail to state what specifically qualifies as a resolution trigger. This opens the door to interpretation and post-resolution disputes.

In the market Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?, there was no explicit definition of what qualifies as a "suit." This led to disagreements over whether any formal-looking outfit should count, or if only a traditional Western-style suit (jacket and trousers) in the spirit of the market should qualify. The lack of specificity created room for both strict and loose interpretations.

Similar markets have different resolution criteria

Markets with nearly identical titles can still have materially different resolution standards, which makes applying precedent tricky and sometimes misleading.

Example:

• Ukraine agrees to Trump mineral deal before April? resolves to "Yes" if the countries agree to a deal.

• Trump x Ukraine mineral deal signed before June? requires that the deal be formally signed before the deadline.

Though both markets ask about the same underlying event, one considers a non-binding agreement sufficient, while the other demands formal documentation. This distinction caused confusion among participants and demonstrated the importance of clearly stated criteria. Additionally, while two markets may have similar titles, one may permit resolution via a consensus of credible reporting, whereas another may require confirmation from official sources only. As a result, one market might resolve while the other remains open, despite their surface-level similarities.

Resolution criteria are ambiguous

A common sign of a poorly written market is when there is active debate over whether an event satisfies the resolution criteria. If interpretation requires extensive clarification, it usually indicates that the original description should have been more precise. This often becomes apparent when disputes arise after the market closes.

In the market Biden senile during the debate?, there was no clear definition of "senile" or how it should be verified. Some pointed to Biden appearing confused or trailing off mid-sentence, while others argued that such moments were subjective and open to interpretation. The market quickly became divided, with participants debating the meaning of the term and whether the question was even resolvable. UMA voters ultimately resolved the market to P3 (Unknown/50–50) due to the lack of objective, verifiable criteria.

Resolution sources are unreliable

Even when a market specifies a clear resolution source, issues can arise if the source is inaccurate, inconsistently maintained, or fundamentally flawed.

In the market Will DOGE cut $3B of DEI contracts before March?, the underlying data on the designated resolution source (doge-tracker.com) changed after the market was live, making it impossible to determine a clear outcome. As a result, the market was resolved to 50–50 (P3), with all losses refunded.

Market titles are misleading

Market titles can sometimes be misleading, especially when they oversimplify or fail to reflect the nuance of the resolution criteria.

In the market What will Powell say during July Press Conference?, one of the answer options was "Step/Stepping Down." This led to confusion over whether Powell simply using the word "step" in another context would trigger a "Yes" resolution. Polymarket issued a clarification stating that only explicit mentions of "step down" or "stepping down" would qualify. "Step" alone would not.

Market titles are later edited

Market titles may be edited, but they are not authoritative. Resolution is always based on the full description, not just the title.

Example:

Polymarket changing the title of a market from Who will win the Super Bowl in 2026? to Super Bowl Champion 2026. Because the underlying market description remained the same, the change had no effect on how the market would resolve.

Market images are non-binding

Images used in a market are purely illustrative and have no impact on how the market should resolve. They are often pulled from media coverage or stock visuals and should never be used as a basis for proposing or disputing a resolution.

Example:

In most markets, the image is a general reference to the topic, such as a photo of a public figure or a flag representing a country. In a market like Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?, the market image might show him in formal attire, but that image does not define what qualifies as a "suit" for resolution purposes.

Solutions

On July 17, Polymarket launched the #rule-review channel in their Discord server. In this channel, users can review market rules before markets go live and provide feedback for a possible reward. This process gives the community a chance to improve market quality and catch issues early, before they affect resolution. It also encourages a diverse range of perspectives, helping ensure that market rules are clear, fair, and robust from multiple angles.

Here is an example of a suggested fix.

Additionally, you can critique Polymarket descriptions in channels like #general, #discussion, and #polymarket-review. For example, in the screenshot below, several users are discussing ambiguous language in a market's resolution criteria.