Polymarket has finalized the disputed market on whether Strategy would sell any Bitcoin by May 31 with a “No” outcome. Market data shows the contract completed its final UMA review on Wednesday, with 98.6% of voting power supporting that resolution after two earlier “No” outcomes and follow-up challenges.
The dispute centered on a regulatory filing Strategy submitted on June 1. That filing said the company sold 32 BTC for about $2.5 million between May 26 and May 31. Traders backing a “Yes” result argued the sale itself took place before the deadline in the market question. Others said the transaction was not publicly confirmed until after the deadline had passed.
Late clarification on confirmation became the flashpoint
Days before the final review ended, Polymarket added a note to the market page saying that “confirmation achieved outside of the market’s time frame does not qualify.” That sentence became central to the argument. Critics said the original contract asked whether Strategy sold Bitcoin by May 31 and did not clearly state that public disclosure also had to occur before that date.
Several traders pushed back on social media. One of the most visible was 0xDinosaur, who had earlier disclosed buying 49,695.76 “Yes” shares for roughly 35,000 USDC. In a public statement before the final ruling, he said his position was aggressive, but taking risk did not change the facts and did not justify applying an unclear or unwritten rule after real money had already been committed.
Large traders say the ruling conflicted with the contract wording
Another trader, willo2, argued on X that UMA voters were supposed to follow Polymarket’s published rules rather than their own view of what outcome made sense. He wrote that even if voters thought the result was ridiculous, they still had to ratify it under the written rules, while claiming that Polymarket had changed those rules and effectively embedded the current outcome into them.
willo2 also said he lost $500,000 after building large “Yes” positions on June 1. His claim was that the market remained open for betting even after information about the sale had surfaced. That accusation widened the controversy beyond the result itself and into how the market was run.
Earlier reporting on the dispute noted that Strategy’s filing showed the company sold the 32 BTC during the final week of May while still holding 843,706 BTC as of May 31. The filing said the proceeds were expected to support preferred stock distributions.
Debate shifts to how prediction markets should resolve facts
The argument has now moved beyond a single contract. At issue is whether prediction markets should resolve based on when an event actually happened or when that event became publicly verifiable. Galaxy Research said on X that the central question was not the outcome alone, but whether the governing standard should be the original event-based rules or the confirmation-based clarification added after trading.
Galaxy Research said traders correctly predicted what would happen, yet the platform was set to tell them they were wrong anyway. The firm argued that prediction markets should price what happened, not how an oracle may reinterpret rules after the fact. It also called for clearer listing standards, deterministic resolution methods for verifiable events, and structural changes before any future regulatory scrutiny.