> I supported Polymarket for years because I believed they represented crypto values. > > In fact, their platform is simply another bucketshop where if you bet too much, you're going to get cleaned.
Please, tell me more about these “crypto values”. Are they values like, “no regulations,” “rug pulls,” “funding ransomware”?
Then he kept playing a market that was already fully decided, when the only step left was to resolve the outcome. I believe the relevant adage here is "You can't cheat an honest man."
With that said, any trades after a market has concluded but before it is officially resolved should be voided. The market should close at the end of the time window (or the time of the resolving announcement, if that's the relevant trigger point).
Is that not how it is? I'm not really following the thread. So is polymarket paying out on the initial position, i.e., the one taken before the window closed, and not on the position after it was a foregone conclusion? Or was the whole position reversed?
--
OK, on rereading, it seems like the polymarket stance is that the confirmation was not available by the deadline. Fine. But the whole "resolved to no" doesn't make sense. Leaving aside the after-the-fact bet, this is just a terrible structure. The whole thing should unwound and everyone who participated should be reverted.
Why is there no way to legally fight this? Is polymarket too de-centralized? Or incorporated in a jurisdiction where that's not feasible? Or are "you can't sue us" ToS actually enforceable here?
> I supported Polymarket for years because I believed they represented crypto values.
A lot of us still fight to push those values forward.
how did we went from being all vocally aware that HFT is a scam that we will never get into, to falling to the lowest denominations of scams just because you can be the patso?