A major governance controversy has hit Polymarket after a powerful UMA token holder cast millions of votes to tilt a market outcome and walk away with a profit. The prediction platform confirmed it will not issue refunds, despite widespread user backlash.
The dispute centers on a market asking whether Ukraine would agree to a rare earth mineral deal with Donald Trump before April. Although no formal agreement was signed or announced, Polymarket settled the market as “YES,” contradicting its own late-stage clarification. The decision cost traders thousands and raised serious questions about oracle governance.
Polymarket relies on UMA’s Optimistic Oracle to settle its markets. According to Wu Blockchain, a single entity used 5 million UMA tokens—25 percent of total votes—through three separate accounts to push through a favorable outcome. The maneuver allowed the trader to profit despite an absence of confirmed real-world events. The final volume of the market exceeded $7 million.
Polymarket’s Discord representative, Tanner, acknowledged the controversy and said the outcome “resolved against the expectations of our users and our clarification.” However, the company declined to classify it as a market failure and confirmed no refunds would be issued. “We have been in war rooms all day internally and with the UMA team to make sure this won’t happen again,” Tanner said.
Clarification Arrived Too Late
The conflict intensified when Polymarket issued a clarification stating that the market was not ready to be resolved. However, the announcement came only after all UMA votes had already been committed. That left the door open for UMA voters—referred to as “whales” in user comments—to reveal their votes and influence the result. The “YES” outcome prevailed, aligning with the whale’s interest and overriding both Polymarket’s late guidance and factual indicators.
According to a user cited by Wu Blockchain, the initial “YES” proposal triggered UMA’s dispute process. The user said the dispute unfolded under conditions of “extreme negligence,” not deliberate attack, placing partial blame on Polymarket for unclear and untimely communication. UMA token holders, the user claimed, acted to protect rewards rather than to follow facts.
Another trader criticized the outcome, saying, “This is a big joke, Zelensky just announced that they are looking into a bigger deal. Which means there was no deal before, wow real scam.” Others mocked the governance model, suggesting that token ownership has more influence than verifiable reality.
@Web3Marmot, a user on X, accused the platform of allowing “influential users who secure positions and then vote in their favor, regardless of the actual results.” They pointed out that the resolution rules required official government confirmation—which never occurred.
Polymarket said it is building out “systems, monitoring, and more to make sure this doesn’t repeat itself.” A public feedback form has been issued as part of its response effort.
