Market Clarifications
Polymarket may issue clarifications to provide guidance on how a market should resolve. These clarifications are typically posted in the market description and announced via X and Discord. They can occur at various stages of a market's lifecycle and often have significant influence on how the UMA Oracle resolves a market. Market clarifications can be found pinned to the Market Rules section. If a market is disputed, the clarification will also be pinned to the top of the UMA discussion thread during the voting process.
In exceptionally rare cases, Polymarket may include a statement that "no updates or clarifications will be made to the market rules," as it did in Was Biden senile? This kind of clause may appear in markets that are expected to be highly contentious from the outset. By contrast, markets that become contentious only after events unfold are usually clarified in response.
An example of a market that became contentious only after events unfolded is Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July? While the market was created without explicitly defining "suit," the spirit of the market was shaped early on through community discussions and disputes, which generally agreed that the intended meaning referred to a Western-style suit. In this case, Polymarket did not issue a clarification.
Polymarket tends to delegate judgment to the UMA Oracle and avoids intervening directly in resolution outcomes. Clarifications are generally provided to offer guidance, with the ultimate decision resting with UMA governance.
Additionally, Polymarket may issue clarifications to reinforce the expected resolution path when UMA consensus is clear but public sentiment, often fueled by social media, pushes in a different direction. For example, in the market Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July?, the UMA community broadly agreed that Zelenskyy had not worn a suit during the relevant period. However, a wave of social media commentary argued the market should resolve to Yes. In response, Polymarket issued a clarification stating that no consensus of credible reporting had been met, affirming the prevailing UMA interpretation.
Timing and Authority
Clarifications can be issued at any point before a market has resolved. This includes:
Before or after the market has been proposed
After a market has been disputed
Before UMA has voted on a resolution
Before votes have been revealed
Authority of Clarification
When Polymarket issues a clarification, UMA voters are generally expected to align with it. UMA arguments are typically set aside in favor of the clarification.
Example:
If Polymarket clarifies that a market should resolve "Yes," UMA voters will usually vote P2 (Yes).
While UMA voters have voted against Polymarket clarifications, the standard practice in recent times has been to follow the clarification.
Cross-Market Applicability
Polymarket clarifications may apply not only to the specific market in which they are issued, but also to other open markets with substantially similar language, subject matter, and resolution criteria. This is content-dependent and hinges on how Polymarket frames the clarification.
For example, if Polymarket clarifies in Elon Musk out as Head of DOGE in 2025? that Elon Musk has ceased to be head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), that clarification may guide the resolution of all similar Elon out of Trump administration markets, even those with different dates or wording, such as:
Elon out of Trump administration before July?
Elon out of Trump administration in 2025?
Market Clarification:
Per the rules if Musk ceases to be head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) this market will resolve to 'Yes'. On February 17, the White House stated that Musk is an employee in the White House Office and is not the administrator nor an employee of DOGE (see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69638651/24/1/state-of-new-mexico-v-musk/). Thus, this market should resolve to 'Yes'.
Cross-applying clarifications ensures consistent resolutions and minimizes duplicate disputes across similar markets.
Effect on Orderbooks
Recent Practice Polymarket has recently adopted a practice of pre-announcing clarification timing to increase transparency.
Example:
We're aware of the dispute on this market. If a clarification is to be issued, it will be at 2 PM ET. If no statement is issued at that time, there will be no clarification. The orderbook will be cleared at 2 PM ET regardless.
Announcement of a Potential Clarification Announcements that a clarification may be issued at a future time do not clear the orderbook.
Anticipated Clarification (Before Market Proposed) When a clarification is anticipated and made before a market is proposed, it generally does result in the orderbook being cleared.
Unanticipated Clarification (Before Market Proposed) Clarifications made before market proposal without prior expectation or announcement generally do not result in the orderbook being cleared.
After Dispute Clarifications issued after a dispute generally do not clear the orderbook.
Case-by-Case Basis In all cases, the clarification or announcement will specify whether the orderbook is being cleared. This helps manage expectations and maintain transparency for traders.
Content and Language of Clarifications
Clarifications may include:
A summary of the relevant event or facts
Example:
The attack on the Eternity C began prior to this market's creation, and the continuance of that Houthi attack (as per UKMTO: https://www.ukmto.org/-/media/ukmto/products/20250709-ukmto_warning_incident_027-25-update-004.pdf) on the Eternity C does not count toward this market's resolution.
A judgment on whether the event qualifies under the market's resolution criteria
Example:
In a market asking whether a person was appointed to a cabinet-level position, Polymarket may clarify that, for the purpose of the market, a cabinet-level position is defined as any role listed on whitehouse.gov/administration/the-cabinet.
A clear conclusion, and may or may not include an explicit resolution instruction
Example:
Therefore, this market should resolve 'Yes'.
If an event does not yet meet the resolution criteria, the clarification may withhold a final judgment, especially if the market deadline has not yet passed and further developments are possible.
Typically, Polymarket only issues a single clarification per market. However, in some controversial or highly sensitive cases, such as those involving geopolitics or conflict regions, Polymarket may decide to refrain from clarifying, leaving it to UMA voters to determine the outcome based on their interpretation of the market language and available information. Polymarket does not typically provide detailed explanations of the reasoning behind a clarification.
The Four Types of Clarifications
There are generally four types of clarifications:
Broader Interpretation
Polymarket may rely on external sources (such as news outlets, official definitions, or industry standards) or apply practical reasoning to interpret ambiguous market language. In some cases, this leads to a broader interpretation of the criteria than some traders anticipated.
Narrowed Scope
Polymarket may restrict or narrow the interpretation of vague terms in the market question, even if it goes against prevailing market assumptions. This can reduce the range of qualifying outcomes and shift expectations.
Rule Adjustment
A clarification updates or resolves ambiguities in the rules, often in response to edge cases or new developments that weren't originally anticipated.
Deference to Oracle
In some cases, Polymarket may choose to defer the final decision to the Oracle rather than issue a specific judgment. This helps preserve Oracle independence and maintain a clear separation between guidance and resolution.
Polymarket typically does this in one of two ways:
By not issuing a clarification: Polymarket may decline to issue a clarification even when many users request one. This can happen either without any announcement or after stating that a clarification may be issued at a specific time and then releasing no follow-up. In both instances, the decision defers resolution to the Oracle without directly addressing the event.
By issuing a precedent-based clarification: Instead of making a direct judgment, Polymarket may state or reference a resolution principle, leaving it to the Oracle to apply that standard to the current situation.
For example, in the Thailand strikes Cambodia by Friday? market, Polymarket issued a precedent-based clarification to guide the Oracle without ruling on whether a particular event qualified.
Clarifications Before Price Action
Generally, clarifications that hinge on upcoming events aim to strike a balance between both sides of the market. When the event in question appears likely to occur with near certainty but the market price does not reflect that confidence, Polymarket may issue a clarification that narrows the scope of the resolution criteria, interpreting the muted price response as a signal of limited agreement among traders. Sometimes, clarifications are framed to limit the scope just enough to sustain active trading and preserve market volume.
For example, in the Will Ghislaine Maxwell testify before Congress in 2025? market, news broke that the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed Maxwell for an August 11 prison interview. This led to uncertainty over whether such an interview would qualify as testifying before Congress. The market price moved to around 50¢, reflecting divided trader expectations. In response, the clarification was crafted to preserve ambiguity and keep the market open rather than confirming resolution too early.
The chart below illustrates how share prices reacted: after the initial July 23 news report, when anticipating the clarification, and following the clarification's release at 2:30 p.m.
Requesting Clarifications
Users request clarifications to confirm whether an upcoming event may satisfy a market's resolution criteria. However, anticipation of a clarification can create mixed signals in market price action, often leading to volatility. In some cases, users may also request clarifications strategically in an attempt to influence sentiment or "pump" the value of their own positions.
This dynamic arises because, in many markets, the resolution criteria and shared interpretation (the "Schelling point") are already informally understood by traders. A clarification has the potential to disrupt that consensus by introducing uncertainty or the possibility of an alternate interpretation, which can temporarily inflate prices for one side.
Recent Practice
Polymarket has also been more liberal in issuing clarifications in recent times, largely due to growing mistrust in the Oracle process and an increase in poorly written or ambiguous market descriptions.
Since August 2025, Polymarket has issued longer, more detailed clarifications with source citations and reasoning, a shift welcomed by several users. For example, in the Will X relaunch Vine in 2025? market, Polymarket issued a detailed clarification explaining its reasoning.
Previously, clarifications rarely reflected community input. That has begun to change, with Polymarket now treating them as a more collaborative process, in line with their Oracle philosophy.
Last updated