2026-07-08 · Polymarket · 12 条相关讨论
what poly did yesterday was so evil imo how could you clarify after waiting for 18h and the market is already at 4c Nothing changed in those 18h, but they had to wait and rugpull people
what poly did yesterday was so evil imo how could you clarify after waiting for 18h and the market is already at 4c Nothing changed in those 18h, but they had to wait and rugpull people
Everyone that bought yes has provided no evidence either besides that picture with the red arrow which is laughable
Everyone that bought yes has provided no evidence either besides that picture with the red arrow which is laughable
How could anyone call that tears? Ronaldo had been running for 90 minutes; that could easily be sweat. Sweat typically accumulates on the forehead and chin, but for some people, it also appears around the eyes, on the cheeks, and across the entire face. If you look closely at Ronaldo's face, the moisture isn't just on his forehead but in various spots; therefore, 90% of what you see in that photo is sweat!
How could anyone call that tears? Ronaldo had been running for 90 minutes; that could easily be sweat. Sweat typically accumulates on the forehead and chin, but for some people, it also appears around the eyes, on the cheeks, and across the entire face. If you look closely at Ronaldo's face, the moisture isn't just on his forehead but in various spots; therefore, 90% of what you see in that photo is sweat!
Nah bro, I’m not saying teary eyes and shed tears are the same outcome. I’m saying the opposite. Teary eyes could lead to tears, sure. But under this rule, watery eyes alone don’t win YES. The rule says Ronaldo has to visibly shed tears that can be clearly observed on his face. That means the tear itself has to be visible on his face, not just moisture in his eye, shiny skin, sweat, lighting, or him looking emotional. So the question is simple: does the image clearly show an actual tear being shed on his face? If we still have to debate what it is, zoom in, add arrows, and guess sweat vs tear, then it is not “clearly observed. Teary eyes = maybe emotional. Shed tears = visible tear on face. The market requires the second one. So no, they don’t automatically produce the same outcome. YES only wins if the teary eyes turn into a clear visible tear on his face. This image still doesn’t prove that.
Nah bro, I’m not saying teary eyes and shed tears are the same outcome. I’m saying the opposite. Teary eyes could lead to tears, sure. But under this rule, watery eyes alone don’t win YES. The rule says Ronaldo has to visibly shed tears that can be clearly observed on his face. That means the tear itself has to be visible on his face, not just moisture in his eye, shiny skin, sweat, lighting, or him looking emotional. So the question is simple: does the image clearly show an actual tear being shed on his face? If we still have to debate what it is, zoom in, add arrows, and guess sweat vs tear, then it is not “clearly observed. Teary eyes = maybe emotional. Shed tears = visible tear on face. The market requires the second one. So no, they don’t automatically produce the same outcome. YES only wins if the teary eyes turn into a clear visible tear on his face. This image still doesn’t prove that.
I went through every frame from our cable stream (tsn, not exactly 4k but upscaled to 4k, closer to very high quality 1080p) and there just wasn't a single one with actual tear shed. My only guess is they got exclusive access to unreleased content by either the photographer or videographer that hovered around him before he left the field
I went through every frame from our cable stream (tsn, not exactly 4k but upscaled to 4k, closer to very high quality 1080p) and there just wasn't a single one with actual tear shed. My only guess is they got exclusive access to unreleased content by either the photographer or videographer that hovered around him before he left the field
Yeah I get what you mean. I’d be careful calling it “insider trading” straight up, because that’s a legal term and people will argue over that. But the fairness issue is real. If YES relies on unaired/unreleased footage or photos that only certain people had access to while the book was still open, then that’s a massive transparency problem. Public traders were betting off public evidence. So the resolution should be based on evidence that can be publicly verified by UMA voters/traders, not some hidden source that only a few people maybe had. So I’d frame it like this: maybe not “insider trading” unless proven legally, but definitely unfair/unverifiable if unreleased evidence is being used without showing the exact source, and original frame etc etc.
Yeah I get what you mean. I’d be careful calling it “insider trading” straight up, because that’s a legal term and people will argue over that. But the fairness issue is real. If YES relies on unaired/unreleased footage or photos that only certain people had access to while the book was still open, then that’s a massive transparency problem. Public traders were betting off public evidence. So the resolution should be based on evidence that can be publicly verified by UMA voters/traders, not some hidden source that only a few people maybe had. So I’d frame it like this: maybe not “insider trading” unless proven legally, but definitely unfair/unverifiable if unreleased evidence is being used without showing the exact source, and original frame etc etc.
This decision is manipulated by UMA voters polymkt should stepup
This decision is manipulated by UMA voters polymkt should stepup
UMA holders manipulated the voting
UMA holders manipulated the voting
The clean exit polymarket can do here is just make it 50 50
The clean exit polymarket can do here is just make it 50 50
they literally said it here so
they literally said it here so
Just to understand there is not a single possibility anymore for UMA to overrule this clarification? Like we totally dependend on pm now yeh?
Just to understand there is not a single possibility anymore for UMA to overrule this clarification? Like we totally dependend on pm now yeh?
Following further review, the previously cited evidence does not satisfy the market criteria for visible tears. The prior clarification is withdrawn. This market will resolve according to the original rules based on qualifying evidence.
Following further review, the previously cited evidence does not satisfy the market criteria for visible tears. The prior clarification is withdrawn. This market will resolve according to the original rules based on qualifying evidence.