Polymarket's May contract on whether Strategy sold Bitcoin has settled at 'No', while the June contract is trending 'Yes' after UMA voters decided that the company's June 1 disclosure is valid for the June contract — even though Strategy itself says the sale happened in late May. The ruling creates a disconnect between the company's account and the prediction market's resolution mechanism, raising questions about how oracle-based contracts handle ambiguous timing.
May contract settles 'No'
The May contract asked users whether Strategy conducted a Bitcoin sale during that month. With the event window closed, the market resolved to 'No', meaning the majority of bettors judged that no sale occurred in May. Polymarket's order book shows near-zero open interest on the 'Yes' side.
UMA voters side with disclosure timing
The June contract hinges on a different question: did Strategy disclose a sale within the June contract window? UMA token holders voted that the June 1 filing qualifies, even though the company's statement described the sale as happening in the final week of May. The decentralized oracle's decision effectively prioritizes the date of public disclosure over the date of the transaction itself.
Strategy's May sale claim
Strategy stated that the Bitcoin sale occurred during the final week of May. A June 1 regulatory filing confirmed the transaction, but the company did not specify the exact day. The gap between the stated event time and the official record is what triggered the dispute on Polymarket.
Unresolved question on event timing
The two contracts now tell different stories. The May market says no sale happened in May; the June market says a sale was disclosed in June. Unless Polymarket or UMA revisits the resolution criteria, the June contract will likely resolve 'Yes' based on the disclosure rule. That outcome could set a precedent for how future prediction markets treat events that straddle reporting deadlines.
