Polymarket Controversy: Syria-Israel Betting Raises Concerns

Polymarket’s prediction of the possibility of Israel’s military intervention in Syria in 2024 has been criticized, especially given that allegations of manipulation have been made against oracle provider UMA.

Prediction marketplace Polymarket has seen trading volume of almost $1.55 billion in the last 30 days.

However, one market sparked controversy with the settlement criteria stating that Israel must answer “Yes” if it takes military action against Syria or any Syrians at any time between September 12, 2024 and December 31, 2024. area.

The decision requires credible approval from someone like Syria, Israel, the UN, or the consensus of a respected reporter. The important thing is that, according to market rules, the Golan Heights is not registered as Syrian territory.

Despite an agreement under which both Israel and Syria have buffer zones, Israel continues to violate Syrian air and land by taking control of some villages beyond the buffer zone. Reliable news agencies confirmed these developments. However, despite these confirmations, UMA voters twice rejected “Yes” attempts to resolve the market.

According to critics, there is a deliberate delay in resolution by a category of UMA token holders, often referred to as “UMA whales”, in order to gain economic benefits. Based on detailed research from crypto commentators, including eOracle’s OxNimrod.eth, several proposals were presented to resolve the market “Yes”, but all were rejected by two executive votes; 97.3% of the votes were against the decision. This has led to accusations that dominant players are exploiting their positions to adopt risk-free trading options.

Hello, I am the co-founder of UMA. I rarely respond publicly to such criticism because I do not want to influence market outcomes. But there is some FUD to be addressed here.

The first point I want to address is the accusation that the “UMA whales” want to manipulate this…

— Hart Lambur (⛺️,⛺️) (@hal2001) December 18, 2024

But co-founder Hart Lambur disagreed, saying UMA voters were people who followed Polymarket’s rules and therefore had a significant stake in the long-term sustainability of the system. Lambur also argued that UMA token holders have no incentive to manipulate the system because their actions would lead to a drop in the token price and damage the protocol’s reputation. He added another perspective to this issue by stating that the rules are determined by those who determine the management at UMA.

The controversy brings to light the flaws inherent in decentralized betting platforms. Fair, transparent and accurate analysis of markets through oracles is of great importance for user trust. This was also seen in another prediction market, Kalshi, in a similar struggle for market clarity and resolution. Allegations of manipulation and the eventual settlement of high-risk markets highlight the need for governance, transparency and clear criteria.