The ceasefire memorandum between the United States and Iran caused a conflict on the Polymarket platform

The group of losing users argues that the decision was made unlawfully: the memorandum contains wording that the parties undertake to negotiate within 60 days to reach a final agreement – that is, in fact, it is a temporary, not a permanent document.

In addition, the official signing of the agreement (Trump and Macron) took place only on June 17, after the deadline of one of the key markets – June 15.

The controversial decision was referred to UMA, an independent cryptocurrency platform that serves as decentralized arbitration for Polymarket. Voting there is determined not by the number of participants, but by the number of crypto coins staked, which is why several large holders (“whales”) are able to single-handedly tilt the outcome in the desired direction.

According to the calculations of one of the victims, the seven largest “whales” controlled more than half of the votes, and it was they who decided the fate of the dispute, in which 565 people participated.

At the same time, the UMA mechanism does not prohibit those who already have an open position on the betting market from voting. The analysis revealed at least three crypto wallets that simultaneously voted “yes” on Polymarket and voted “yes” on UMA. Victims also point to the possibility of coordination of votes between participants, which further reduces trust in the system.

Users state that multiple requests to Polymarket have remained unanswered and intend to seek a review of the decision through the court.