UMA voters decided that the June 1 disclosure from Strategy counted for the June contract, even though the firm reported selling bitcoin in the last week of May.
By Sam Reynolds|Edited by Omkar Godbole Jun 4, 2026, 7:50 a.m. 2 min readMake preferred onKey Points:
- Polymarket resolved its bitcoin sale prediction markets by ruling the May 31 contract as No and the June 30 contract as Yes, based on a vote from UMA token holders.
- The crux of the dispute was whether Strategy’s sale of 32 bitcoin from May 26 to May 31 should be counted towards the May deadline, with UMA voters concluding that only the June 1 public disclosure was relevant.
- A significant number of large UMA holders, including wallets associated with Risk Labs and other notable participants, swayed the vote towards No, resulting in losses for those who bet on a sale by May.
Strategy's recent bitcoin sale, its first in over three years, ignited a considerable controversy on Polymarket. The dispute resolution body, comprised of UMA token holders, ruled against bettors who anticipated the sale would occur by May 31.
The issue arose after Strategy made a June 1 filing stating it sold 32 bitcoin between May 26 and May 31. Traders who placed Yes bets in the May market argued that the sale clearly happened before the deadline, while others contended that since the sale was not publicly revealed until June 1, it should not be counted for the May 31 deadline.
UMA token holders, who act as Polymarket's oracle system's dispute-resolution mechanism, sided firmly with the latter perspective.
The outcome means that bettors who predicted a sale by May 31 lost, even though the company later disclosed that the sale occurred in late May. Conversely, the June contract resolved to Yes as the transaction was made public in June.
This decision was influenced by a small group of major token holders, raising questions about the fundamental promise of decentralized finance, which aims for governance that is not dominated by a few large players.
The most significant vote came from borntoolate.eth, who contributed 3.11 million voting weight for No. Other notable No votes included UMA contributor Kevin Chan with 1.53 million voting weight and several wallets casting over 1 million each. Collectively, the four largest No voters held nearly 7 million voting weight, more than 25 times that of the entire Yes side.
Several wallets linked to Risk Labs, the entity behind UMA, also voted No, along with other key players in the UMA ecosystem.
Not everyone agrees with the ruling. Galaxy Research, which had substantial stakes in the May contract, expressed strong dissent on X. The firm emphasized that Strategy explicitly sold the 32 bitcoin between May 26 and May 31, arguing that the resolution criteria should focus on when the sale occurred rather than when it was publicly disclosed on June 1.
"Strategy's SEC-filed Form 8k clearly stated that the sale occurred between May 26–31. A straightforward interpretation of the resolution criteria suggests that the market should have resolved to YES, leading to the controversy," the firm stated.
More For You
Apyx's STRC collateralized stablecoin suffers a brief depeg. Protocol says its a feature, not bug
By Omkar Godbole|Edited by Shaurya Malwa1 hour agoApyx’s apxUSD stablecoin briefly dropped to 93 cents Wednesday.
What to know:
- Apyx’s apxUSD dropped to 93 cents during bitcoin's decline below $63,000.
- Apyx asserts that volatility is anticipated and mitigated through overcollateralization, dividend mechanisms, and limited liquidation risk in Morpho markets.