Trump declassifies JFK files in first week?

i hope this site goes down, scam and support are also scammers how dont answers, so good look getting your money when they decide to keep it

luck

this market is already exposed as clear as day scam, they dont do shit if trump would say that

so i guess truth isnt worth betting on here, a major flaw on a prediction market, Uma deciding truth and polymarket suck uma dick

this is a scam site for all to see

I will be working to have this platform banned in my country should they fail to issue a refund

Be blessed!

Any updates on attempts to address this- I've gotten nowhere

Same, Support on discord were usless

I think all of us can agree that UMA is deeply flawed. Most of the voting power is concentrated with a few individuals, effectively making the system ‘centralized.’ This YouTube video does a great job of explaining the problems with UMA: [link removed]

To all YES holders - Please consider voicing your opinion on the Polymarket Discord, by creating a support ticket or writing messages in the market-review thread. I doubt support will care, but I suppose if enough people make enough noise, they’ll maybe do something.

Given the ambiguity surrounding this market and the number of times it was disputed, could Polymarket not have issued a clarification? They really screwed the YES holders.

which clarification? the rules were clear they just decided uma money is worth more than the truth

There was some people who wrongfully believed the executive order Trump signed was an ‘announcement.’ An executive order is a legal document which compels immediate action.

Yes, im still waiting for my 47K i informed SEC via official documents

There was others who wrongfully believed the JFK files must’ve been publicly released for this market to resolve to YES. The rules made no mention of that, and only that they are declassified, which they were. This was confirmed by the WH, gov officials, and numerous media outlets as well. There is a big difference between declassification and public release. Declassification removes the security classification from documents, but public release involves additional steps, considerations, and sometimes separate decisions about making those documents publicly available. An example of this would be a FOIA request.

Using UMA as primary resolution mechanism leads to the demise of polymarket eventually

Despite clear evidence of declassification via an executive order, the resolution marked the bet as a loss, which appears inconsistent with the terms of the bet and the official action taken by the government. Lack of Transparency: The UMA governance mechanism is decentralized, but its structure seems to allow for centralized control by a small group of token holders who can influence the outcome of markets. This lack of accountability may result in unfair outcomes, especially when decisions are made to the benefit of the platform rather than adhering to the terms of the bet.

The following images provide clear evidence of how the UMA token holders influenced the outcome of the market, resulting in an unjust resolution that did not align with the legal actions taken by the U.S. government. The Final Vote is currently not available on UMA page, I will send them ones their released in ''past votes''

As part of my submission, I am including screenshots of two UMA governance votes that occurred on January 25th and January 28th, 2025. These votes, I believe, clearly demonstrate a manipulation of the resolution process in the prediction market. The votes show a clear attempt to bend the truth regarding the declassification of JFK files, despite President Trump having signed the executive order on January 23, 2025. These votes were critical in influencing the final decision that resulted in my bet being marked as a loss.

Conclusion This issue highlights significant concerns about the integrity of online prediction markets, especially when decentralized governance mechanisms like UMA are used to resolve bets. I believe that Polymarket's decision to mark my bet as a loss was unjustified, and that UMA token holders influenced the outcome in a manner that raises questions about market manipulation and unfair practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am seeking transparency, fairness, and a thorough investigation into the resolution of this bet and the practices of Polymarket and UMA.

Requested Action I respectfully request that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigate this issue and consider the following: Review the Bet Resolution Process: Investigate whether the UMA governance mechanism and the voting process by token holders led to an unfair market resolution in my case. Evaluate Market Manipulation: Examine whether the actions of UMA token holders influenced the outcome of the market unfairly, resulting in a loss for me despite clear evidence of declassification within the specified timeframe. Ensure Fair Practices: Consider establishing clear guidelines for prediction markets to ensure that the market outcomes align with the actual, verifiable actions taken by governments or other entities, and that manipulation of market outcomes via decentralized governance systems is addressed.

Unfair Resolution: Despite clear evidence of declassification via an executive order, the resolution marked the bet as a loss, which appears inconsistent with the terms of the bet and the official action taken by the government. Lack of Transparency: The UMA governance mechanism is decentralized, but its structure seems to allow for centralized control by a small group of token holders who can influence the outcome of markets. This lack of accountability may result in unfair outcomes, especially when decisions are made to the benefit of the platform rather than adhering to the terms of the bet.

I filled a official complain, made documents and pictures [link removed]

You're aware polymarket is restricted in the US right? Probably for the reasons you're complaining about

i dont think this changes thing does it?

I'm well aware its easy to give up and keep going but it is VERY clear that yes holders were right on this market

There is a market: https://polymarket.com/event/trump-declassifies-jfk-files-in-first-week/trump-declassifies-jfk-files-in-first-week?tid=1738719380895 that was heavily disputed and UMA resolved it to no, despite the fact that trump signed the executive order, which is legally binding on the 23rd. The owners of No were larger holders of the UMA token and were able to control the vote. Every major news source, the white house itself and even other Polymarket markets- declare the files already declassified

how can i send you long text or document which i included in offifial SEC complain i want to show you

2. The Bet Resolution: Despite the executive order being signed on January 23, 2025, fulfilling the terms of the bet, Polymarket marked the bet as a loss. The platform’s official resolution stated that the files had not been declassified by the required date, even though the declassification was publicly announced through the signing of an executive order, which is a legally binding document. 3. The Role of UMA (Universal Market Access): Polymarket uses UMA's decentralized governance system to resolve its markets. UMA token holders play a role in determining the outcome of markets. In the case of my bet, UMA token holders voted to resolve the market "No", indicating that the declassification had not occurred according to their decision, despite the official executive order signed by the President. UMA’s decentralized governance allows token holders to influence market resolutions through a mechanism called "Money Tokens". This system enables token holders to vote on outcomes, potentially allowing those with the most tokens to sway decisions. This raises significant concerns about market manipulation, as the UMA token holders might have swayed the decision in favor of the platform, despite the official declassification occurring within the bet’s timeframe.

4. The Impact of the Unfair Resolution: The market resolution of "No" was in direct conflict with the publicly available information: President Trump's executive order. The UMA token holders' influence on the resolution process led to an unfair outcome. The decision to mark my bet as a loss seems to have been manipulated by those who held the most voting power within the UMA governance system. This action undermines the integrity of prediction markets, as it appears that the decision-making process was influenced by a centralized group with substantial control over the outcome. Concerns About Unfair Market Practices and Manipulation Market Manipulation: The ability of UMA token holders to vote on and potentially alter market outcomes introduces a significant risk of manipulation. In this case, the vote of the token holders did not align with the legally binding actions taken by the government, which I believe constitutes an unfair market practice.

Please open a ticket in the Polymarket discord saying something like the following:

How Did This Violate SEC Rules? Explanation of the violation: This is where you explain why you think the bet was unfair and why you believe the platform is violating market practices or acting unreasonably. Example: The terms of the bet required the declassification to occur by January 27, 2025, and President Trump's executive order on January 23, 2025, should be considered as fulfilling the terms. The order was an official, legally binding action, and the bet should have been resolved in my favor. The platform's refusal to recognize this official act raises concerns about potential market manipulation or unfair practices. Why Do You Believe the Conduct Violates SEC Rules? Explanation of your belief: Here, elaborate on why you think the platform is manipulating the outcome or not abiding by fair market practices. Example: The betting platform’s decision to mark the bet as a loss, despite an official and legally binding executive order being signed, seems to be a case of market manipulation. The resolution was not in line with the spirit of the agreement, and the platform may have structured the bet’s terms in a way that would favor them unfairly.